Soo 
“ 
ae, 


“* 
oe 


ws 
oo 


See 
SEK) 


ae 
. 


eeten 
rere 


By the same Author. 


THE HISTORY OF MARRIAGE, JEWISH AND 
Christian, in Relation to Divorce and Certain Forbidden 
Degrees. Second Hdition, enlarged. Crown 8vo. 6s. 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE BETWEEN DEATH 
AND JUDGMENT : being a Sequel to ‘ After Death.’ New 
and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. 


“We have to express our deep thankfulness to Dr. Luckock for his fall and 
careful exposition of the significance of our Lord’s descent into hell, the value of 
prayers for the dead, and the reality of the intermediate state.’—Guardian. 


THE BISHOPS IN THE TOWER. A Record of Stirring 
Events affecting the Church and Nonconformists from the 
Restoration to the Revolution. New and Cheaper Hdition. 
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. 


‘We most heartily commend this delightful volume. It is full of original 
research and clear and broad grasp of situations; it is written by one with the 
historical faculty richly developed.’—Literary Churchman. 


AFTER DEATH. An Examination of the Testimony of Primi- 
tive Times respecting the State of the Faithful Dead, and their 
Relationship to the Living. New and Cheaper Edition. 
Crown 8vo0. 3s. 6d. 


FOOTPRINTS OF THE SON OF MAN, AS TRACED 
BY ST. MARK. Being Eighty Portions for Private Study, 
Family Reading, and Instructions in Church. With an Intro- 


duction by the late Bishop of Ely. New and Cheaper Edition — 


in One Volume. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. 


‘His book is designed “‘for private study, family reading, and instructions in ~ 


church.” For one or all of these three purposes we heartily recommend it. . . . 
The frequent references to the Talmud and Mishnah, as illustrating the Gospel 
record, form a peculiarly valuable feature of the book.’—Church Quarterly Review. 
THE DIVINE LITURGY. Being the Office for Holy Com- 

munion, Historically, Doctrinally, and Devotionally set forth, in 


fifty portions. New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 38.6d. 


LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY: LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 


“Ne 
. 


yn 


5 
-, =. 


rae Ree My 


ae oe 


hires 


a 
ra: 


y= 


Ce 
To. 


STUDIES IN THE HISTORY 


OF 


STUDIES 
VI 


IN THE HISTORY OF THE ; 4 


he Anglican Reform i 
Ge Puritan Junovations 
he Elizabethan Reaction 
he Caroline Settlement 


WITH APPENDICES 


BY 
HERBERT MORTIMER LUCKOCK, D.D. 


DEAN OF LICHFIELD 


NEW AND CHEAPER EDITION (1806) pri 


NEW IMPRESSION 


LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 
NEW YORK AND BOMBAY 


1900 


ie ein boty" 
€ > 


DUS CTE ULES Hi 
E :; COLLEGIO : THEOLOGLH : ELIENSI 
TUM : HODIERNIS : TUM : HESTERNIS 
QUIBUS : SPEI : TIMORISQUE : PARTICEPS : FUL: 


STUDIORUM : AC : LABORIS : FAUTOR : 


{ 


. VITZ : RELIGIONISQUE : EXEMPLAR : INDIGNIUS : 


HOC : OPUSCULUM : SUSCEPTUM : 
AD : FIDEM : CATHOLICAM : MAGIS : STABILIENDAM : 


DEDICO. 


Pretace, 


Ir often happens that many things in a book 
are intelligible only to those who are familiar 
with the mind and character of the author. 
An expression or phrase, which may ordinarily 
be passed over as unimportant, becomes instinct 
with meaning and suggestiveness, when read 
by one who has the advantage of an inti- 
mate acquaintance with the writer by whom 
it was used. And if this be true in regard to 
the chief leaders of thought in the present day, 
it is truer still when the reader and writer find 
themselves separated from each other by a long 
distance of time. 

Now the realisation of this has often made 
me feel that a much fuller apprehension of the 
real teaching of the Book of Common Prayer 
would be attained, if more light could be thrown 


600335 


x Preface. 


upon the views and characters of the different 
men who compiled and revised it. 

Many summaries of the history of the Book 
have been given to the world at divers times, 
but the authors have for the most part been 
satisfied with little more than the bare enumera- 
tion of the names of men who were charged 
with a work unequalled in importance for the 
influence which it has exercised on the worship — 
of the Church. In a few instances, eg. Cranmer 
or Ridley or Cosin, there was no necessity to do 
anything more, but Day and Thirlby and Morley 
(to select at haphazard), except to the real 
student of Ecclesiastical History, have been 
names, and names only. 

Perhaps it would be impossible to illustrate 
more forcibly the advantages of such a plan as 
I proposed to myself than by a reference to 
the Council of Nicea. Its history has often 
been written, and the names of the leading 
Bishops who took part in it have been familiar 
enough; but what a world of fresh interest 
gathered into that Council-chamber by the 


Preface. xi 


Bithynian Lake, when Stanley seized the dry 

bones, and clothed them with flesh and blood, and 

stampt its own individuality upon every form! 

However much men may dissent from his con- 

. clusions, no one can deny that by the portraits 
of the disputants which he has drawn, from 
Constantine and Athanasius to Spiridion and 
Paphnutius, he has imparted a reality to the 
scene, as refreshing as it is instructive. 

The materials upon which I have drawn for 
what I have written in the following pages are 
so scattered and various that anything like a 
full acknowledgment is impracticable. Much of 
course has been found in such standard histories 
as those of Collier, Fuller, Peter Heylin, and 
Strype in earlier times; or in Hook’s Lives of the 
Archbishops, and Froude’s History of England, 
and Dr. Stoughton’s series of works on Ecclesi- 
astical History in later times. Separate Bio- 
graphies, Diaries, Histories of individual Colleges 
at the two Universities, Athene Oxonienses and 

- Annales Cantabrigienses, have supplied suffi- 


cient matter for forming a fair estimate of the 


xii Preface. 


opinions of the Bishops and Divines who were 
most concerned with the growth and develop- 
ment of the Prayer-book. 

Dr. Stoughton’s Histories have had an especial 
interest, as putting forth far more ably and 
attractively than ever before the views of Non- 
conformists upon those critical times. 

But while according him much praise for the 
general tone, the vivacity and the clearness of 
his writings, it is impossible not to see that he 
has failed to recognise the real standpoint of the 


Church. For instance, he speaks without any — 


reserve in condemnation of the ejection of the 
ministers in 1662 A.D., and tries to enlist our 
sympathies with the sufferings which they had 
to undergo, because they were too conscientious 
to conform to the Church of the Restoration, 
ignoring the fact that, twenty years before, their 
opponents had suffered equally, and that too at 
the hands of men who had usurped the govern- 
ment. If the Nonconformists had their “black 
Bartholomew,” the Bishops and the Established 
clergy had theirs also; indeed, not a few of the 


Preface. xili 


ministers who made such a grievance of being 
cast out in 1662 A.D. were actually holding 
benefices from which the orthodox incumbents 
had been ousted during the Commonwealth. 

It only remains for me now to perform 
the pleasant task of expressing my grateful 
q acknowledgments to those who have aided me 
7 in the work which this publication has en- 
tailed. These are due especially to the Bishop 
of the Diocese, for help directly and indirectly 
; given, as well for suggestions before its com- 
< mencement, as for criticism of the results when 
¥ the work was concluded. Doubts and per- 
plexities were certain to arise, where the right 
understanding of a book, second in importance 
only to the Bible, was the object in view. On 
such occasions I have found myself not infre- 
& quently appealing to his counsel and judgment, 
; and rarely without seeing the prospect cleared, 
: and the difficulties made easier to contend 
with. 

Next I would tender my thanks to the Rev. 
CANON VENABLES, Precentor of Lincoln, for having 


xiv Preface. 


kindly examined the printed pages, and suggested 
some useful alterations. Also I gratefully ac- 
knowledge the help in revising and correcting 
the proof-sheets, which I have received from the 
Rev. W. B. TREVELYAN, my colleague in the Ely 
Theological College. And lastly, I may not 
forget that a fairly exhaustive Index—that part 
of a work on which much of its usefulness so 
frequently depends, but which nevertheless the 
author is so ready to neglect—is the acceptable 
contribution of a member of my own family. 

And now in sending forth this humble treatise, 
I would express an earnest prayer that He, with 
Whose worship well-nigh every page of it is 
concerned, will bless its influence for an ever- 
increasing love, and a more intelligent and 
reverential use of those Forms of Prayer and 
Ceremonial observances, for which such brave 
battle was done in more troublous times. 


H. WERE: 


Ghe Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, 1881, 
CoLLrer, EL. 


Preface to the Second Cdition, 


Iy sending forth the Second Edition I cannot 
forbear to express my thanks to numerous corre- 
spondents, especially to not a few of the Bishops 
of the Church and their Examining Chaplains, 
for their kindly recognition of this effort to 
infuse fresh life into a too much neglected 
subject. The careful criticisms and suggestions 
of Canon Bright have led me to modify a few 
passages, as well as to supply some additional 
matter, chiefly in connection with the Scotch 
Liturgy. 

Many recommendations, though valuable in 
themselves, I have been obliged to disregard, 
inasmuch as to have carried them out would 
have altered too largely the character of the 
book, and brought it into undesirable competi- 


tion with others. 
H. ML 


Ghe Feast of the Annunciation, 1832. 
COLLEGE, ELY. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 


PAGE 
Notices of the Harly British Church.—The source from 
which she derived her Liturgy.—The Mission of St. 
Augustine.—Gregory’s reply to his questions.—The 
rise and spread of Monasticism in England.—The 
Benedictine Rule of Life.—The Canonical Hours.— 
The Liturgical Reforms of Gregory vu. and Bishop 
Osmund. — Religion confined to the Monasteries.— 
Rivalry between the secular and regular Clergy.— 
State of Public Worship in the Cathedrals in the 14th 
and 15th centuries, . : 5 “ . XX 


CHAPTER I. 
Ohe Anglican Reform. 


The Pre-Reformation Service-books.—The ‘‘ Uses.” —Mon- 
: astic worship.—The New Learning.—The authority on 
which the Revision of the Service-books was under- 
taken.—The first Committee.—Their representative 
character.—_The Primate.—The Bishops: Goodrich, 
Thirlby, Day, Ridley, and Holbeach.—The Presbyters : 
Cox, May, Taylor, Haynes, Robertson, and Redmayn. 
—The Committee enlarged.—The changes : in the lan- 
guage.—Roman arguments for a dead language.—The 
English of the First Prayer-book. — Larger use of 
Seripture.—The Calendar.—The consolidation of ser- 


b 


XVIll Table of Contents. 


vices.—Ancient lines followed.—Comparison of Re- 
formed and unreformed services.—The completion of 
the first Revision.—Its authorisation.—Its reception. 
—Rebellions.—Their suppression, . - ° . 


CHAPTER ie 
Qhe Puritan Innovations. 


The Foreign Reformers.—Scheme for a Concordat.—Its 
hopelessness.—The Diet of Spires.—The League of 
Smalcald.—The tyranny of the Emperor.—The Re- 
fugees in England: a Lasco, Peter Martyr, Martin 
Bucer.—The Vestiarian Dispute. —John Hooper.— 
Revision on the authority of Parliament.—Changes 
introduced in the Revised Book.—In Matins and Hven- 
song. —Baptism.—Confirmation.—Matrimony.—Visita- 
tion of the Sick.—Burial Service.—The Communion 
Office.—The Sacrificial aspect obscured.—The doctrine — 
of the Real Presence discountenanced.—The Invocation 
and Agnus Dei omitted. — The Black Rubric. — 
Suggested Explanations.— Unsatisfactory.—The aims 
of the Puritans defeated, . 5 . . . . 


3 CHAPTER III. 
Qhe Clizabethan Reaction. 


The accession of Queen Mary.—Reaction upon her death, 
—Difficulties confronting Queen Elizabeth.—Her doc- 
trinal views.—First steps toward revision. A Com- 
mittee appointed.—Public Debate in Westminster 
Abbey.— Proposals for legislation.—The Abbot of 
Westminster and Bishop Scott.—The Act of Uniformity, 
—Changes introduced.—The Queen and her Privy 
Council.—The Injunctions.—Anglican Worship fully 
restored.—Generally accepted.—Opposition raised.— 
Causes which advanced the Puritans.—The Queen’s — 
rapacity.—The neglected state of the Churches.—The 


Table of Contents. 


object of the Injunctions.—The Advertisements.—The 
London Clergy.—The Universities.—The opportuneness 
of Hooker’s Works, 


CHAPTER IV. 
he Caroline Settlement. 


The state of feeling during the proscription of the Prayer- 


book.—Deputation to Holland, and the Breda Declara- 
tion.—The return of the King.—A second manifesto.— 
The unreasonableness of the Presbyterians.—Proposals 
for a Conference.—The meeting in the Savoy.—The 
Members: Cosin, Morley, Sanderson, Pearson, Gun- 
ning, Reynolds, Richard Baxter, Calamy, Lightfoot.— 
The object of the Conference.—The exceptions of the 
Puritans.—Baxter’s Liturgy.—An attempt at agree- 
ment.—Causes contributing to the restoration of Epi- 
secopacy: The Coronation: The Solemn League burnt : 
The Act of Uniformity: The return of the Lords 
Spiritual to the House of Peers.—The results of the 
Conference.—Committee appointed for the final Re- 
vision. —Bishop Wren.—Cosin’s previous labours.— 
Numerous changes.—The Sealed Books.—The Act of 
Uniformity.—The consequences.—The conduct of the 
Presbyterian Ministers.—The impossibility of recon- 
ciliation.—The settlement at the bar of history, . 


APPENDIX I. 


On the Gallican Liturgy.—Points of resemblance between 


it and the Sarum Missal.—Its original source.—An 
outline of the structure of the Liturgy, , - 


APPENDIX II. 


The Order of the Communion, . i : - : 


Xix 


PAGE 


111 


158 


205 


APPENDIX IIL. . 
Soe 


The Hampton Court Conference.—The hopes of the Puri- 
tans revived on the accession of James 1.— The 
Millenary Petition.—The Constitution of the Con- 

P ference.—The meetings. —The sign of the Cross 

ae objected to.—The King’s answer.—Unimportant co 

a, cessions.—The Prayer-book strengthened.—Forms of 
Prayer added.—A new translation of the Scriptures 


undertaken, «  . ss tu) 


APPENDIX IV. 
The Scotch Liturgy of 1637 a.p., i - hi 


APPENDIX V. 


The Directory of the Commonwealth, together with some 
account ofits principles, . 5 E Penta 


APPENDIX VI. 
Changes introduced into the Prayer-book in 1662 a.D., 


Antroductory Chapter. 


T may help the reader to a better understanding 
of the subject which we have endeavoured to 
illustrate in this book if we notice briefly the 
conditions of Public Worship in the country before 
we arrive at the great epochs with which the Book 
of Common Prayer is more immediately concerned. 

The materials from which the historian is able to fe ene of 
draw for a description of the Church and everything British 
connected with it among the Britons are so scanty 
that much uncertainty must necessarily prevail. 

Tertullian,’ in the second century, says that “even 
those parts of Britain hitherto inaccessible to Roman 
arms had been subdued by the gospel of Christ ;” 
and Origen,” half a century later, testifies that “the 
power of Gop our Saviour is even with those in 
Britain who are divided from our world.” 

At the beginning of the fourth century we find 
the British Christians governed by Bishops. In 314 

1 Adv. Judeos, vii. 
2 Hom. vi. in Luc., also iv. in Hzech. But in his commentary 


on St. Matthew, he speaks of ‘‘very many” as not yet having 
received the Gospel, iv. 271. 


xxi 


The source 
from which 
they drew 
their 
Liturgy. 


XXil Introductory Chapter. 


A.D., at the Council of Arles in Gaul, among the 
signatures to the Canons then passed occur the 
names of Eborius, Bishop of York, Restitutus of Lon- 
don, and Adelphus of Lincoln (or perhaps, Caerleon). 
Again, British Bishops are associated with the 
Councils of Sardica in Illyria, “343-4 ap. and 
Ariminum in Italy, 359 av. Though not actually 
present at the former, they assented to its decrees, 
while, in connection with the latter, it is worthy of 
notice, as bearing upon the poverty-stricken condi- 
tion of the Church in this land, that, when the 
Emperor offered to defray the expenses of the 
Bishops who attended, the offer was declined except 
by those from Britain, who were too poor to refuse. 
In 429 AD. an event occurred which in all 
probability had an important influence upon the 
after-worship of the Church. The Britons, finding 
themselves unable to oppose the spread of Pelagi- 
anism, sent to Gaul for some learned men to come 
over to help them. A Gallic Synod was called, and 
Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus of Troyes, 
were sent as a deputation, and after completely 
refuting the errors of the heretics, whom they met 
in controversy at Verulam, they returned home, but 


only to be reinvited to establish the Britons in the 


Faith, and build them up in the doctrines of the 


Lntroductory Chapter. XXlil 


Catholic Church. It is to the second visit of Ger- 
manus, 447 A.D., accompanied on this occasion by 
Severus, a disciple of his former companion, that the 
introduction of the Gallican Liturgy and Ritual is 
most probably to be attributed. 
And from this date, passing over a dark and 
g obscure page in the Ecclesiastical history of the 
country, we come to the Mission of St. Augustine. The mission 
It is on his arrival with his forty companions, pee 


‘ April 14, 597 «.p., that for the first time we have 
a any definite mention of the existence of particular 
* Forms of Worship in the British Church. The 


Gallican Liturgy was then in use in St. Martin’s 
Church, Canterbury, where Queen Bertha wor- 
shipped, and Bishop Luidhard ministered: not 
perhaps in all points in its original shape, for varia- 
5 tions were common in the Primitive Liturgies, arising 
from a multiplicity of causes, such as the peculiarities 
of a people, their habits and tastes, or the wishes of 
the Bishop of the Diocese. One thing however is 
certain, that when St. Augustine landed in England, 
he found a congregation of Christian people using 
a for their highest Act of Public Worship a Service 
ss which they had derived from Gaul. 

Be We are almost surprised that he should have 
expressed so much anxiety to supersede it by the 


XXIV Lutroductory Chapter. 


Roman. Had it been a Liturgy of the Oriental 
type, the variations from that to which he was LY 
accustomed would have been so numerous that his 
desire to substitute his own would have been quite 
intelligible: but between the Roman and the amy 
Gallican there were so many points of resemblance 
that he might well have been satisfied to leave the 
existing Forms undisturbed. But he was impatient 
of any divergence, and inquired of Pope Gregory 
“why one custom of Masses should be observed in the ce 
holy Roman Church, and another in the Gallican”? 
He hoped no doubt that he would receive authority 
to impose the Roman in all cases without hesitation, # 
but he was doomed to disappointment. 
The Pope, in his reply, showed him that there 
was no obligation to insist upon the Roman. “You 
Gregory's. know,” he writes, “the custom of the Roman 
eae Church in which you remember you were bred up. 
But it pleases me that if you have found anything 
either in the Roman or the Gallican or any other 
Church, which may be more acceptable to Almighty 


> 


Gop, you carefully make choice of the same, and 
sedulously teach the Church of the English, which 
as yet is new in the faith, whatsoever you can gather 
from the several churches. For things are not to 


‘ Cf. Hammonn’s Liturgies, Eastern and Western, xxiii-iv. 


| 


Introductory Chapter. XXV 


be loved for the sake of places, but places for the 
sake of good things. Choose, therefore, from every 
Church those things that are pious, religious, and 
upright, and when you have, as it were, made 
them up into one body, let the minds of the 
English be accustomed thereto.” 

How far the advice was followed is a disputed 
question. Perhaps the most probable explanation 
of the different views is to be found in the 
supposition that the two Forms of Liturgical practice 
continued side by side for a time: those Churches 
which owed their origin to the missionary adopting 
that of their founder, while such as used the Gallican 
before his arrival continued their worship unchanged. 

Such divergence, however, ceased in the eighth 
century, when by a decree of the Council of Cloves- 
hoo,? 747 A.D., it was decreed that the Roman 
Missal should be adopted throughout England. 

But in addition to the Worship of the Altar 
with which alone the rare notices hitherto have 
been concerned, we now meet with daily worship 
and more frequent services. During that stage of 
Church history which reaches from the Mission of 


1 Cf. Bepe’s Lecles. Hist. i. xxvii. 

2 The place of meeting has been much disputed. Cliffe-at-Hoo, 
Abingdon, and Tewkesbury, have each had their advocates. For 
the Decree cf. WinKins’s Concilia, i. 97. 


The rise 
and spread 
of monas- 
teries in 
England. 


The Bene- 


dictine Rule 


of Life. 


XXVI Introductory Chapter. 


St. Augustine to the Conquest, all our interest 
gathers round the Monasteries. 

These had existed before in different parts, to 
which the numerous “ Bangors”! are said to testify. 
At Eangor Iscoed, at Bangor Wydrin (or Glaston- 
bury), and “the great Bangor over Conway,’ and 
in other places, Monastic Colleges were built and 
formed centres of religious study and worship; but 
the system took no real hold of the country till the 
beginning of the seventh century. From this time 
forward it spread with marvellous rapidity. 

It was the monks who converted the heathen. 
The austerity and stern duties which marked their 
manner of life seemed to be possessed of attractions 
for the rude Anglo-Saxon; and when the thanes 


and nobles with their crowds of retainers were 


drawn in, and then finally Kings and Queens lavished 
their treasure upon the Monastic Houses, the country 
became literally overspread by them. All the most 
beautiful spots in the land were assigned for their 


settlement, and in “every rich valley, and by the | 


side of every clear stream, arose a Benedictine 
Abbey.” England became “a nation of monks.” 

A consideration of the Benedictine Rule of Life 
will enable us to realise what an impulse the worship 


1 For particulars cf. Bricur’s Hecles. Hist. 29. 


ae 


~ 


me es a ge = a3 ee we La 
eee a Ae eae ON OE De SAS ES OO eh 


Lutroductory Chapter. XXVil 


of Gop received from the extension of the Monastic 
system. The day was divided between “opus Dei, 
labor et lectio:” or the service of GoD and manual 
ss and intellectual work. For the regulation of the 
. first, the day was divided into what were called 


2 


F ij 
; 
ay 


ae 
~ 


“Canonical Hours.” There is some variety, but the The Hours. 
ordinary arrangement gave seven in addition to the 
c midnight Service: viz., Matins, or Lauds, at day- 
| break; Prime, at six AM.; Tierce, at nine A.M. ; 
Sext, at noon; Nones, at three p.m.; Vespers, before 
sunset; and Compline, at bed-time. 

In the “ Excerpta” of Ecgbright,! we read, “ These 
| seven synaxes or assemblings we ought daily to offer 
f to Gop with great concern for ourselves and for all 
Christian people.” Divers conjectures have been 
made as to the grounds upon which they have 
severally been observed. 

The night-services probably originated in times 
of persecution. Prime and Vespers, at sunrise and 
sunset, would naturally suggest themselves in 
connection with the Sun of Righteousness. The 
observance of the three “Lesser Hours,” which 
received their names from the third, sixth, and 
ninth hours with which three of the four divisions 
of the day terminated, was probably regarded as a 

1¢, 28, 


The Re- 
forms of 
Pope Gre- 
gory VII. 


The Re- 
forms of 
Bishop 
Osmund, 


XXVIli Introductory Chapter. 
continuance of the Jewish custom. Compline, from 
Completorium, was the gathering up of the day’s 
devotions, the Service in which the worshipper 
fully commended himself to Gon’s care for the 
coming night. These services combined were called 
“Divinum Officium.” 

The next epoch opens with the Reforms of 
Gregory Vil. and Bishop Osmund of Sarum. 

The former, who occupied the Papal Chair from 
1073 to 1086 A.D., re-arranged and abbreviated “the 
Divine Services” which had been used at “the 
Hours,” and brought them out under the title of 
“The Breviary,’ which was generally imposed to 
the exclusion of the existing Forms. It consisted 
of four parts, for Winter, Spring, Summer, and 
Autumn respectively, and each part had four or five 
subdivisions, viz. :—1. Kalendarium ; 2. Psalterium ; 
3. Commune Sanctorum ; 4. Proprium de Tempore ; 
5. Proprium Sanctorum. Sometimes the second 
and third of these were combined, as containing 
those parts which did not vary with days or seasons. 
In England the favourite title for the Book was 
Portiforium, which in its English form had many 
equivalents,—portfory, portuisse, and portuary. 

The other reformer of Service-books was Osmund. 
After the Conquest the Anglo-Saxon clergy were in 


er 
oe 
ov 


Lutroductory Chapter. XXI1X 


some cases forcibly ousted, in many succeeded at 
their deaths by men of Norman blood. 

Among these was a Count of some distinction as 
a statesman, who was consecrated to the See of 
Salisbury+ on the death of Herman, 1087 A.D. 

He at once set himself to put an end to the great 
diversities of Rites and Ceremonies, which prevailed 
in different parts of the country, and even in 
different parts of the same Diocese. He revised 
the Service-books, and set forth a reformed Breviary, 
Missal, and Manual for adoption in all the Churches 
and chapels over which he had jurisdiction. 

These, which constituted what was known as “the 
Sarum Use,” became generally popular, and were 
introduced into many parts of England, and held 
their ground down to the Reformation. 

So far we have looked at the worship of GOD Religion 


: - 5 z -, confined in 
mainly as it was offered in the Monasteries, but it the main to 


would have been almost useless to look elsewhere, for ie Mags 
nearly all the religion of the country was gathered 
within their walls. The people who derived so 
much benefit from them would naturally be drawn 
into sympathy with their religious life. The 
Benedictine monks were the chief missionaries, for 


as they spread over the land they associated the 


1 The date has been variously given at 1085 and 1087 .p. 


Results of 
the rivalry 
between the 
secular and 
regular 
Clergy. 


Ss Introductory Chapter. 


work of evangelisation with the labours of agri- 
culture, and while they were turning uncultivated 
wastes into productive and luxuriant farms, and 
bringing plenty to the homes of the people, they 
superseded ignorance and blind Paganism by the 
blessed knowledge of the Gospel of Christ. 

But in lapse of time their popularity waned, and 
a rivalry grew up between the secular clergy and the 
monks. And inasmuch as the former were in the 
main idle and incompetent, religion flagged, and in 
the Church, outside the Religious. Houses, the 
worship of Gop was suffered to fall into neglect. 

There was a brief resuscitation in the thirteenth 
century, when the country clergy were roused from 
their apathy by the enthusiasm with which the 
preaching Friars carried on their mission. 

But the good influence was only short-lived: the 
mercenary spirit of the Roman religion, so rife at 
that era, was infused into the new Orders, and the 
preaching of indulgences supplanted the preaching 
of the Gospel. 

In the Monasteries, as soon as they openly 
repudiated the authority of the English Bishops, the 
door was opened for the admission of endless 
innovations, and the Service-books became more and 
more tainted with Roman errors. 


L[utroductory Chapter. XXxXi 


The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were so 
notoriously evil that for them as well as for the 
ninth and tenth “the dark ages” has been regarded 
as the most fitting designation. This period has 
been described in these striking terms, “‘the epoch 
was an eclipse—a very Egyptian darkness; worse 
than chaos or Erebus—black as the thick preter- 
natural night, under cover of which our Lord was 
erucified.”? 

And though all this refers to the general condition gtate of 


_ of the Church, the decay of Public Worship was one ee — 


of the most marked of its features. If we may peateer s 
judge from what we read of the Mother Churches, }4tP at 
then we may well doubt if it was ever nearer to turies. 
total extinction. As a single illustration, in the 

great Metropolitan Cathedral, at the close of the 
fourteenth century, where there was every facility 

from rich endowment and benefactions to maintain 

the beauty of holy worship in her services and 

ritual, we are quite appalled at the revelations of 
history. Where the worship of the Altar and the 

Daily Services had been for many generations 
offered with becoming dignity and splendour, the 

sacred vessels and ornaments were pilfered or sold, 


1 Dublin Review, xliv. 49, cited by Hoox, Lives of the Arch- 
bishops, vol. iii. 58. 


XXXil L[utroductory Chapter. 


and the building profaned “by foul and abominable 
acts.” The House of GoD became a place of 
merchandise ; and while the Services were suspended 
or driven into obscure corners, men and women, not 
on common days merely, but especially on the 
Festivals of the Church, exposed their wares, 
buying and selling with no thought whatever for 
the sanctity of the place. 

Then if we leap over a gap of a hundred years 
we find scarcely any improvement, and we realise to 
the full the appropriateness of the title which those 
centuries have received. When Dean Colet in 1505 
A.D. found himself the guardian of St. Paul’s, with 
all his religion he made hardly a visible effort to 
purge the Church of the profane uses to which it 
had been abandoned. The degeneracy of the times 
was such that it may well be doubted whether he 
could have reinstated the worship of Gop; but a 
brighter era was about to dawn, and with it the 
shadows of the past were to flee away. 

In the following pages we have endeavoured to 
show how the interest of the Reformation centred 


round the re-establishment of a pure worship with the 


Service-books revised and the Ritual regulated with 
a due regard to the edification of the worshippers. 
1 Cf. Minman's Hist. of St. Paul's, 82. 


CHAPTER I. 


Che Anglican Weform. 


HE chief Service-books! in use in the English The Pre- 


Church at the time of the Reformation were aS 


these: The Breviary, containing a series of daily Meee Ee 
services for the Canonical Hours, which were eight 
in number. 


1 BREVIARIUM: cf. Introductory Chapter. MISSALE was the 
title given probably in the eighth century, or a little later, to 
_ the volumes in which the following Office-books were united: 
LeEctionARivs, for the lections from Scripture. Sometimes this 
was divided into Epistolarium, for the Epistles, and Evange- 
listarium, for the Gospels : ANTIPHONARIUM, or GRADUALE, for 
all that was sung at Mass: SACRAMENTARIUM, for all the fixed 
parts and the Collects. 

MANUALE was the title in the Salisbury and York ‘‘ Uses” for 
the Book called elsewhere RituaLe. It comprised the offices for 
Baptism, Matrimony, Burial, and others of less importance. 

PONTIFICALE; the chief contents of this were the Ordination 
Services, Confirmation, Consecration of a Church and Burial 
ground, and sundry Episcopal benedictions. 

In addition to the above the Pruwers deserve notice, though 
they were originally intended rather for private than public 
service. The Primer was not confined to any one definite set of 
prayers, but embraced several different collections according to 
the will of the compiler. Maskell’s Primer, e.g. which has been 
assigned a date as early as 1400 a.D., contained Matins, Evensong, 
Compline, Litany, the Hours of the Virgin, the Penitential 
Psalms and Songs of Degrees, the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and 


r¢) A 


SY a a 
Re, 


2 The Anglican Reform. 


The Missal, or Order of Celebration of the 
Holy Communion. 

The Manual, for the Baptismal and other occa- 
sional offices, which might be performed by a priest. 

The Pontifical, for such as the Bishop alone 
administered. 

In all of these severally, while the outline and 
structure were the same, there was considerable 
variety in detail, and different editions, if we may 
so speak of them, had become generally accepted in 
different localities. York, for example, Lincoln, 

The dif- Hereford, and Bangor, had each its own “Use,” 
aes marked off by some peculiarity, while the remaining 
Dioceses united in the adoption of that entitled 
“the Sarum,” which the Bishop of Salisbury? had 
compiled with so much care in the eleventh century. 
Three things in particular contributed to call for 


Ten Commandments. It was usual to print the book in English 
and Latin, sometimes in one of these languages only. A revised 
edition was brought out by Marshall in 1530 a.pD., and another 
by Hilsey, Bishop of Rochester, in 1539 a.D., but all existing 
editions were superseded in 1545 a.p. by ‘‘ The Primer set forth 
by the King’s Majesty and his Clergy to be taught, learned, and 
read: and none other to be used throughout all his dominions.” 

1 It is considered highly probable that he was assisted by 
Lanfranc, who had already compiled a ‘‘ Use” for the Benedictines. 

For the influence of Roman ritual upon that which was intro- 
duced into England in view of reconciling the clergy, which con- 
sisted of two rival races, cf. Preface to the Sarum MIssAL in 
English, pp. x.-xi. 


The Anglican Reform. 3 


a revision of these Service-books about the middle 


2 of the sixteenth century. 

The Dissolution of the Monasteries! made a com- 
- plete reconstruction of the Breviary an imperative 
‘* necessity. In Religious Houses, where it was of the 
| 


very essence of their constitution that the worship 
4 of Gop should enter largely into the routine of daily 
life, it was an easy matter to subordinate all other 
occupations to that which was held to be of primary 
importance, and seven? times during the twenty-four 
hours the Bell of the Monastery summoned its 
inmates to assemble in the Chapel for Divine 
: Service. 

When Henry vit. realised that the Monastic 
Orders remained unshaken in their loyalty to the 
} Papacy, and that the title of “Supreme Head of the 
q Church,” which he had assumed, could be little more 
than nominal, if such formidable opponents were 
left to foster seditious counsels, nothing remained 
for him but to dissolve their constitutions and 
appropriate their revenues to other purposes, 


A 1 The Lesser Monasteries, 376 in number, with incomes not 
exceeding £200 a year, were dissolved by Act of Parliament, 
1586 a.D. The Larger Monasteries shared the same fate, but not 
so summarily. The Act which appropriated their revenues 
passed 1539 a.D. 

2 Tn lapse of time the two early services came to be used con- 
tinuously, and were regarded as one. 


——- fo a 


ra 


Frequent 
worship an 
essential 
feature of 
the Mon- 
astic life. 


4 The Anglican Reform. 


It disap- With this abolition of the Religious Orders, the 
Their dis offering of frequent worship became wholly im- 
oe practicable. Up to the time of the Dissolution, the 
daily service had not attracted the bulk of the 
people. A certain number, no doubt, wherever 
there was a Monastery in the neighbourhood, would 
be drawn to some extent into a participation of its 
worship, but generally the people must have felt 
themselves precluded by their occupations from 
taking any part therein. Now, however, that the 
Monasteries had been swept away, men realised that 
if the daily homage of the creature was to continue 
to be paid, such changes were called for as should 
make the payment compatible with their secular 
duties. 
How this was effected we shall see presently. 
A second demand for revision arose out of the 
revival of learning. 
The New The close of the fifteenth century witnessed the 


Learning in she , 
the Univer- beginning of what was designated “the New Learn- 


te ing.” The Universities claimed the honour of its 
birthplace. Erasmus, of whom it has been said that 
he was the first “ man of letters” who had appeared 
in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire, 
worked a complete revolution in the education of 


: 1 Cf, FREEMAN’s Principles of Divine Service, i, 278. 


£ od a St 
*, meta, Fee, 


The Anglican Reform. 5 


_. the country. The Greek language, long known but 
most imperfectly, and studied only in the books of 
authors wholly unworthy to represent its genius and 
its true value, seemed suddenly endowed with new 
attractions, and under the egis of Erasmus regained 
its place in the two great seats of learning and 
education. He determined to break down the 
ignorant hostility to classical literature which 
reigned in the colleges and monasteries ; but how 
difficult a task it was, and how long it took for 
scholars to shake off the fetters of a barbarous 
S age, a study of Erasmus himself will abundantly 
; testify. With all his appreciation of the beauties 
of Cicero, notwithstanding the spontaneity and 
naturalness of his Latin, which give it all the 
€ charms of a living and spoken tongue, he is still far 

removed from the purity and grace of the classical 


models. 
a But that for which we are most deeply indebted Theimport- 
| to him is the impulse which he gave to the study of aaa 
the New Testament in the original language! The Sate 
h 


1 Erasmus’s Greek Testament, though of no critical value, made 
a deep and lasting impression. He had neither the mss. to enable 
him to form a text, nor training to do it evenif he had. To it, 
Ik however, is due the first awakening to the fact that the Vulgate 
was a document not worthy of the confidence which the Church 
had placed in it. 


Longings 
for a more 
rational 
kind of 
worship. 


6 The Anglhcan Reform. 


“ever memorable” Dean Colet,! foremost among his 
friends, substituted lectures on Scripture at Oxford 
for the customary disquisitions on Scotus and 
Aquinas; while at the sister university George 
Stafford discarded the glosses of the Schoolmen 
altogether, and taught his classes to study the text ; 
and not a few of the Reformers? sat at his feet. 
One of the most immediate results of this reaction, 
which rapidly affected the community at large, was 
to make them dissatisfied with the part they had 
hitherto been contented to take in public worship. 
Men awoke to the realisation of the privileges 
which attached to “the priesthood of the laity,’* and 


1 Dean of St. Paul’s, and founder of the School which bears that 
name. He commenced his Lectures on the Greek Testament in 
1498 a.D. 

2 Latimer, though at first bitterly opposed to him, became a 
convert to his teaching, and drew Ridley over to the same studies. 

3 Maskell, in opposition to those who have asserted that daily 
service was never intended for the laity, appeals to the authority 
of the Fathers and decides that it is ‘‘a certain thing, that the 
Divine Office was not instituted solely for the clergy, but for all 
men who call themselves Christians.” Cf. FREEMAN'S Principles 
of Divine Service, i. 277. 

The Scriptures teach plainly that in some sense all Christians 
are priests. St. Prrer, addressing his converts at large, writes, 
“* Ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy 
priesthood,” and again, ‘‘Ye are a chosen generation, a royal 
priesthood, a holy nation.” 1 Ep. ii. 5, 9. 

St. Joun also adopts similar language, ‘‘And hath made us 
kings and priests unto God.” Rev. i. 6. 

This teaching however has often been misunderstood and supposed 


The Anglican Reform. 7 


they determined to claim a portion in that intelligent 
and rational service, which the Clerics had mono- 
polised all too long. 

The first step towards the attainment of this 
was the introduction of the vernacular in place 
of a dead unspoken tongue in the Public Forms— 
the supersession of Latin by the language of the 
country. 

The third, and by many considered to be the chief 
call for revision, came from the pressing necessity 
for purifying the Service-books from error, and 
clearing away the accretions of superstitious usage 
which had accumulated upon them in medieval 
times. 


to destroy the efficacy of ordination. Rightly interpreted, it 
enhances it greatly. It is evident that the Apostles had in their 
minds the language which God addressed to the Israelites, where 
speaking to all He said, ‘‘ Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of 
priests and an holy nation.” Exop. xix. 6. They knew well 
that though the universal priesthood of the nation was here 
acknowledged, God had set apart a special priesthood with special 
functions, and so hedged it in that for any one of ‘‘the kingdom 
of priests” to claim it, without being called, was an unpardonable 
sin. Unless the two cases had been analogous the Apostles 
would have been careful to avoid the language they used. It is 
worthy of notice how those Nonconforming bodies, which lay stress 
in this matter on the authority of St. Peter and St. John, have 
robbed the laity of their prerogative, and precluded them almost 
entirely from all part in the offering of public worship. A compari- 
son of the ordinary service and the parts assigned to the congregation 
and the ministers as appointed in the Church and in any Dissenting 
Chapel will exhibit the contrast in a very marked manner, 


The autho- 
rity upon 
which re- 
vision was 
under- 
taken, 


8 Lhe Anglhcan Reform. 


Such then being the chief causes which contributed 
to make a revision necessary, it remains for us to 


examine the authority by which it was undertaken | 


and carried out, with a view to estimating how far 
the work is entitled to the confidence of the 
Church. 

There are few greater mistakes than to accept as 
correct the loose statement so frequently made, that 
the Committee of Revision were appointed by the 
Crown. Long before it ever entered into the head of 
Henry VIII. to touch our services, a reformed edition! 
of the Sarum Breviary had been issued: and it is 
worth while observing that it followed the very lines 
which the Commissioners laid down for themselves 


2 


in Edward v1.’s reign. This again was succeeded a 


few years later by a somewhat similar revision of 
the Sarum Missal. Now both of these were under- 
taken before the King had assumed the title of 
“Supreme Head of the Church,”? and when as yet 


1 Jn 1516 and 153la.p. Cf. FREEMAN’s Principles, ete., Introd. 
pt. Il. sect. x. 

2 This is especially observable in reference to the simplification 
of the directions for services, and to the extended reading of Holy 
Scripture. 

3 The title of ‘‘sole protector and supreme head of the 
Church,” which he proposed to assume, was much discussed in 
Convocation, and accepted with the limitation ‘‘quantum per 
Christi legem licet,” first by Canterbury and shortly afterwards 
by York, An Act of Parliament was passed in 1534 a.D. declaring 


The Anglican Reform. 9 


he took no such interest in ecclesiastical matters as 

to justify us in believing that the work was in any 

way dictated by his advice or direction. Indeed we The King’s 
find him at this time most unwilling to meddle with Snes 
Church Reform of any kind: as unwilling as Con- 
vocation was the reverse. He rejected a petition 
presented to him by the Convocation of Canterbury 

for an authorised version of the Bible in English for 

general circulation. 

It is true that a few years later he was induced 
to reconsider his decision, but we point to his hesi- 
tation in the matter as an indication of his in- 
difference to reform, and as affording a strong 
presumption that whatever was done was sanctioned 
by Convocation, the idea of independent action 
being quite untenable. 

But when at length the King was persuaded to 
= interest himself in Liturgical improvement, his first 
: step was to commission the Archbishop to acquaint 
the Houses of Convocation that it was his pleasure 
that the Service-books should be revised: “that all 
a mass-books, antiphoners, portuisses, in the Church 
¥ of England should be newly examined, corrected, 
| and reformed ;” and Convocation ordered that the 


the King to be the “Supreme head on earth of the Church of 
* - England.” 


The first 

Committee 
of revision 
appointed. 


Impedi- 
ments to all 
real reform. 


10 The Anglican Reform. 


work be intrusted to the Bishops of Sarum and 
Ely,1 with three assessors? each from the Lower 
House. Matters had been made somewhat easier 
by an enactment of the previous year that one uni- 
form service should be adopted throughout the 
Province of Canterbury.2 But there was one fatal 
obstacle to any real reform. So long as the Statute- 
book* imposed death by burning as the penalty for 
denying the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and 
hanging as a common felon for disapproval of Com- 
munion in one kind, or of the perpetual obligation 
of vows of chastity, or of the necessity of auricular 
confession, we can easily understand that the Re- 
visionists felt themselves clogged and hampered at 
every step. The memory of the terrible scenes 
enacted in the torture-room where Ann Askew so 
heroically endured the rack, or of the fires of Smith- 
field, in which, in company with others, she suffered 
martyrdom for her belief, must have hung like a 
sword of Damocles over their Council Chamber. 
Indeed, Capon’s predecessor in the See of Sarum, 
Nicholas Shaxton, had been condemned to the stake 
on the self-same charge, but had purchased his life by 


1 Capon and Thomas Goodrich. 2 Cf. p. 13. 

3 March 3, 1541 a.D. Cf. W1LKmns’ Concil. iii. 861, 862. 

4 The Act passed in May 1539 a.p. The other enactments were on 
the efficacy of solitary masses and the celibacy of the priesthood. 


The Anghcan Reform. II 


recantation; and the recollection of this must have 
haunted him like a spectre till the Statute was 
repealed. The first object aimed at was the accept- 
ance of the principle that it was lawful for the laity 
to communicate in both kinds. Convocation ac- 
cepted this principle on the 30th of November 
1547, during the progress of a bill to authorise it 
through the House of Lords, and before it was in- 
troduced into the Commons The Act ordained 
simply that the primitive custom of administering 
in both kinds should be observed, but no set form 
of words was prescribed. Parliament was pro- 
rogued on December 24th, and did not reassemble 
till the close of the next year. Convocation was 
also prorogued; but in the spring “The Order of 
Communion” was drawn up, and issued by the 
King, for administering in both kinds, and it was 
wholly in English.2 The Proclamation? speaks of 

1 Cf. Append. by Bishop Stubbs in Ecclesiastical Courts Com- 
mission Report, i, 142. 

2 This ‘‘ Order of Communion” was really an addition to the old 
Latin Mass of an English Form to be used when any of the laity 
communicated. Cf. Appendix 11. 

3 The Proclamation ran thus: ‘‘ The most Blessed Sacrament of 
the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour should from henceforth 
be commonly delivered and ministered to all persons within our 
realm of England and Ireland and other our dominions under both 


kinds, that is to say, of bread and wine (except necessity of the 
wise require) lest every man phantasaying and devising a sundry 


The Mem- 
bers of the 
Committee 
of revision 
who as- 
sembled at 
Windsor 
Castle. 


12 The Anglican Reform. 


the advice received from the Protector, and other 
of the Privy Council, and ordered that the Blessed 
Sacrament should be ministered unto our people 
only after such form and manner.! 

After this the Committee was enlarged and pro- 
ceeded with the revision of the Prayer-book. 

Conventional pictures of this assembly of divines, 
which most probably held some of its sessions in 
the Council-room at Windsor,” have placed Arch- 
bishop Cranmer in the chair. He is supported on 
either side by three bishops: while the six members 
chosen from the Lower House of Convocation 
occupy a cross-bench facing the Primate. 

The Bishops were Goodrich of Ely, Holbeach of 
Lincoln, Skip of Hereford, Day of Chichester, 
Thirlby of Westminster, Ridley of Rochester, 
The remaining six members were: Cox, May, 


way by himself, in the use of this most blessed Sacrament of unity, 
there might arise any unseemly or ungodly diversity.” 

1 In former editions, I spoke of, this Order of Communion 
having received the sanction of Convocation. In this I have made 
alterations, being now satisfied that I was mistaken, and that I 
had confused its action in regard to the principle of conceding the 
cup to the laity with the Form of Service subsequently framed 
for administration. 

2 There has been much dispute as to the actual place of session. 
They were unquestionably in audience of the King at Windsor, but 
as the Court was residing at Oatlands during their deliberations, it 
is said they usually met at Chertsey Abbey. Cf. Gasquet, p. 133, 7. 


hails 


The Anghcan Reform. La 


3 Taylor, Haines, Robertson, and Redmayn: the same 
- no doubt who had sat as assessors to Capon and 
Goodrich in the Committee of 1542 a... Which 
a of the bishops was placed on the right, which on 
oa the left of the Primate’s chair; which again of these 
4 places was the post of special honour, we need not 
stay to dispute, as Rome has so vehemently disputed 
; in reference to another and still more momentous 
assembly? in her eagerness to claim the foremost 
place for her representative. In all probability 
Goodrich, as the most eminent Bishop of the old 
Committee, and the senior Bishop, occupied the two 
highest seats, while Ridley as junior, and Thirlby as 
Bishop of the latest constituted see, that of West- 
minster, occupied the two lowest. 

Now let me call your attention to the great care 
which appears to have been taken to make it a truly 
representative Committee. We shall see how success- 
fully the selection was made, for no interest with any 
claim to have a voice in the revision was neglected. 


Convocation claimed the whole number as mem- The repre- 


sentative 
character 
of the 
Comittee, 


bers of one or other of its two Houses. 
The Crown had its advocate in Cranmer, than 


1 Dixon implies that they were not formally appointed, only 
nominated. The original terms are obscure; ‘‘ but this the Lower 
| House released.” — WILKINS, iii. 863. 

4 2 The Council of Nicea, 325 a.D. 


The Pri- 
mate’s char- 
acter and 
opinions. 


14 The Anghcan Reform. 


whom none could be more attached to the king 
personally or more tenacious of his rights and pre- 
rogative. 

The Universities appeared in the Heads of their 
chief Colleges, Cox being Dean of Christ Church, 
and Redmayn, Master of Trinity. 

Two of the different “Uses” were represented 
directly: Lincoln by Holbeach and Taylor; Here- 
ford by Skip: two, York and Bangor, indirectly, as 
we shall see, while the Archbishop and the other 
Bishops watched the interests of the Sarum “Use” 
which was adopted in all their dioceses. 

It is proposed now to draw the portraits of the 
chief of these Commissioners in as few lines as is 
practicable, but in such a manner that the reader 
may be able to conjecture their part in the work, 
possibly also to imagine on which side their votes 
would be given on the debated questions, which 
they were called upon to decide. 

Of Cranmer many pictures have been given to 
the world, but probably in the case of no other 
person have the representations varied so materially 
from each other. This variation is due not so much 
to the bias of the painter, as to the fact that his 
character did change in many of its features at 
different periods of his history. 


t Le 
rr 4 


The Anghcan Reform. 15 


As he is seen seated in the chair at Windsor, 
he bears distinctly many of the qualifications which 
fit him pre-eminently for the post. He had in a 
marked degree the first requisite for an efficient 
chairman, viz., a perfect control over his temper. 
He was by no means a man of great genius, or an 
original thinker, likely to strike out something 
fresh, but he possessed a good judgment, which 
would enable him to discriminate between what 
was new and what was old; what was purely 
Roman, and what was Catholic. He had a pro- 
found reverence for the Holy Scriptures upon which 
he based his doctrinal views, not however according 
to his private judgment, but as the great Fathers of 
the Catholic Church had interpreted them in pri- 
mitive times.1 Again and again, his loyalty to 
Catholic antiquity manifested itself. 

His views on the Holy Eucharist were already, it 
is true, declining from the Catholic standard, but 
still very different from those which he maintained 
eventually. He was orthodox in holding the com- 


1‘T protest and openly confess that in all my doctrine and 
preaching both of the Sacrament and of other my doctrine, what- 
soever it be, not only I mean and judge those things as the 
Catholic Church and most holy Fathers of old with one accord 
have meant and judged, but also I would gladly use the same 
words that they used.” Cf. Hoor’s Life of Cranmer, cap. ili. 
pp. 147-9, 


——— 


16 The Anglhcan Reform. 


memorative! rather than the propitiatory sacrifice: 
the representation or pleading of that which was 
once offered upon the Cross, rather than the 
repetition of it, which some few so persistently 
maintained. 

This was an important point which Cranmer 
was determined not to yield, and it was probably this 
determination which induced him to decline the offer 
of Calvin, who was opposed to any sacrificial view of 
the Holy Eucharist, to aid in the revision, Unless 
moreover he had felt very strong in his position he 
would hardly have acted as he did, for Calvin was at 
this time in the very zenith of his reputation, and 
many would have welcomed his assistance as the best 
guarantee for real reform. 


1 For the right understanding of this we suggest a short explana- 
tion. Firstly, Christ was offered in sacrifice once for all, and in that 
sacrifice made a full, perfect, and sufficient atonement for sin. 
Herein it was distinguished from the Jewish sacrifices, which 
being imperfect were necessarily repeated. But though Christ 
died once only, and in His Death all His sufferings ended, there 
is a sense in which His offering is continuous. Look at the type. 
When the typical act of Atonement was about to be made on one 
day for the whole sins of the year, the sacrifices were offered in 
the outer court, and then the High Priest, taking the blood of the 
sacrifice, entered within the Veil, and presenting it before the 
Mercy Seat in the presence of God pleaded for forgiveness by and 
through it. The sacrifice was not complete till it was presented 
and pleaded before God. Now see the antitype. Christ suffered 
without the camp, and then by His own blood entered the Holy 
of Holies to complete His sacrifice by presenting and pleading it 


1 tenn He 


2a 


The Anglican Reform. ny 


Next in point of interest to the Primate is un- 
questionably Goodrich, Bishop of Ely. 


Now there are many circumstances in Goodrich’s ESD 


life which we are concerned in hearing of. When a 
Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, he like his 
more famous companion on the same Foundation! 
rose into Royal favour by his judgment on the crucial 
question of the Divorce of Queen Catherine. He had 
been selected by the University from his legal know- 
ledge to be on the Committee for drawing up an 
answer to the King’s application respecting the 


before God. This is still going on, as Hepnnws viii. 3 clearly 
teaches, and will be continuous till He comes again, when the 
pleading or representing the memorial of His Death will cease. 
Now let us see, secondly, how the Holy Eucharist is the counter- 
part on earth of Christ’s presentation of His own sacrifice in 
heaven. He commanded the Apostles to @ffer this as His memorial 
sacrifice. The language he used would suggest as much to Jews. 
*Avduynots was not a term familiar to them for a ‘‘memorial 
before men ;”’ wherever it was used in the Greek Scriptures it was 
of a ‘‘memorial before God;” cf. NumB. x. 10; LEvirT. xxiv. 7; 
Hesr. x. 3, compared with Levit. xvi. 17. zrovetv, though often 
used in another sense, admitted a sacrificial interpretation; cf. 
BisHop Hamiuton’s Charge. Liddell and Scott give the mean- 
ing ‘‘to sacrifice,” movely udoxov, LXX. ‘‘Sacerdos vice Christi 
vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit, imitatur, et sacrificium 
verum et plenum tune offert.—Sr. CyPRIAN, Ep. 63. ‘‘Asitisa 
commemoration and representment of Christ’s Death, so it is a 
commemorative sacrifice.”—JER. TayLor’s Life of Christ, Disc. 
xix. Cf. also St. Currsost. Hom. xvii. ad Hebr.; BRaMHaLL, 
Ep. de la Milletiere, Works, i. 54; Buu, Works, ii. 271 (Oxf.) 
ANDREWES'S Resp. ad Apolog. 
1 Cranmer was twice Fellow: elected first in 1523 a.p. 


B 


oodrich, 


18 The Anglican Reform. 


legality of the separation. There is no difficulty in 
discovering which view he took, for he was made a 
royal chaplain shortly after, and within a few years 
nominated to one of the most enviable posts, the 
then-wealthy and dignified Bishopric of Ely.* 

The Author Itis more than probable that the first part of the t 

oe an the Church Catechism? was his composition, and when in 

Pc he year 1552 A.D. he built the Long Gallery attached 
to the Palace, side by side with the armorial bear- 
ings of the See and his own initials, he engraved on 
two tablets that which he desired to bé associated 


1 When the Abbey of Ely was converted into a Bishopric in 
1109 a.D., the king directed that the estates should he divided in 
just proportion between the Bishop and themonks. The division, 
which was conducted entirely by Harvey, the first Bishop, and 
forced upon the monastery, was so far from being an equitable one, 
that a contemporary, William of Malmesbury, writes of it in these 
terms :—‘‘ You may judge of the value of the ancient possessions 
of the Church of Ely by this: that though many of them have 
been taken away and many are in the hands of intruders, yet he 
who now presides there receives annually £1040 into his own 
purse, besides what he expends on his own family and in keeping 
up hospitality, but has scarcely allowed £300 to the monks,”— 
Cf. BentHam’s Hist. of Ely Cath. p. 135. 

2 This portion, extending to the paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer, 
has generally been ascribed to Nowell, afterwards Dean of St. Paul’s, 
but at the time of this revision an assistant-master at West- 
minster School. There is a strong presumption against the pro- 
bability of the revisers deputing such an important work to one in 
a position of so little dignity. It was far more likely to be under- / 
taken by one of their own body, such as Goodrich was. It is 
worthy of record that in 1540 a.p. he was appointed one of the trans- 
lators of the Bible, and had the Gospel of St. John allotted to him. 


The Anglican Reform. 19 


with his name before anything else, “our Duty to 
Gop,” and “ our Duty to our neighbour.” 

His eagerness for reform led him to inaugurate 
his episcopate by a series of Injunctions, having for 
their object the overthrow of Papal influence, and 
the erasure from the Service-books of the name of 
the Pope, and the demolition of shrines which were 
frequented by idolatrous worshippers. But that he 
was in no sense a fanatic or disposed to condemn 
any usage or thing simply because it had been 
abused, his monument in Ely Cathedral, upon which 
he is represented with the full pontifical habit, bears 
evidence. He is further said to have endeared 
himself to the King by his singular wisdom, and 
to have won the affections of the people by his 
integrity and moderation. 

Next after Goodrich comes Thirlby, whose appoint- Bishop 
ment on the Commission is the best proof of the his Roman 
impartiality with which the selection was made. baat 
Although admitted to the privy councils of Henry 
vi. and Edward vi. he never sympathised with 
them in their desire to shake off their allegiance to 
the Papal See, but continued throughout a staunch 
Roman; and at Queen Mary’s accession he was 
singled out as the fittest ambassador she could send 
to tender to the Pope her assurances of loyal 


a 


Bishop 
Day of 
Chichester, 
a firm and 
resolute 
adherent of 
medieval 
use, 


20 The Anglcan Reform. 

obedience. He was chosen too in the same reign, 
for a task from which, under other circumstances, he 
would have shrunk back, the degradation of Cranmer 
before he was sent to the stake. And if further 
and yet more decisive proof of his opinions is 
needed, it may be found in his refusal to accept the 
reforms of Queen Elizabeth and his consequent con- 
signment to prison in the Tower. 

One honour he enjoyed which has been shared by 
no one else. He was the first and last Bishop of 
Westminster, having exercised the episcopate there- 
in from the creation of the See till its dissolution.* 

As Bishop of Ely, he was a great benefactor, 
especially to the Foundation of Jesus College, Cam- 
bridge, which owes to him much of its ecclesiastical 
patronage, and also to his cathedral, which received 
from him the endowment of its eight prebendal 
stalls. 

Of Day less is known, but enough to make it 
certain that his hand would be held up and his 
voice raised against all changes involving any real 
departure from medieval usage. He was more 


1 The Abbey was dissolved and erected into an Episcopal See in 
December 1540 a.D., and Thirlby appointed first Bishop with juris- 
diction over Middlesex. On March 29, 1550 a.D., he surrendered 
it into the king’s hands, who thereupon dissolved it, reconciled 
Middlesex to London, and translated the Bishop to Norwich, 


The Anglican Reform. 25 


courageous in holding his opinions than his brother 
of Westminster, as we shall see when we come to 
the close of the sittings. When the King issued 
letters for the conversion of altars into tables, he 
refused to enforce the order in his diocese, and when 
threatened with deprivation, he pleaded vigorously 
for the rights of conscience; but finding his efforts 
to be unsuccessful, he expressed his final decision in 
terms which command our respect: ‘he accounted 
it a less evil to suffer the body to perish than to 
destroy the soul,” and “he would rather lose all that 
he ever had in the world than condemn his con- 
science.” He was committed to the Fleet Prison,? 
and his bishopric sequestrated. 


The character of Ridley is too well known to need Bishops 


description, while of Holbeach, who assumed that 


; : d 
name on becoming a monk of Croyland in place of Holbeach 


his patronymic Rands, so little is left on record that 
it would be difficult to form an accurate estimate of 
the influence which he exercised upon the proceed- 
ings of the Commission. 


1 Cf p. 48. Day, Thirlby, and Skip all protested at first, 
but the two latter had not the courage of their opinions when the 
final pressure came.—Cf. Soames’s Edward VI. p. 354. 

2 Noy. 30, 1550 a.D. Cf. CoLLIER’s Hecl. Hist. v. 424. He was 
afterwards treated with kindness and sent to reside with the Lord 
Chancellor. 


The pres- 
byters on 
the Com- 
mission. 


Cox: his 
shameless 
rapacity. 


22 The Anglican Reform. 


Of the members of the Lower House, the most 
distinguished on the whole was Cox. He stands out 
in many ways as the very counterpart of Thirlby, 
and no one who reads their history can fail to be 
struck with the fairness of a Commission which 
admitted men of such opposing views. 

When a Fellow at Oxford, Cox became enamoured 
of Lutheran Theology, and amid all the changes of 
those ever-varying times, he remained a consistent 
Protestant to the end. 

After he came into the notice of Edward v1, 
honours were thickly heaped upon him, and it fills 
one with wonder at the small sense of responsibility 
which such a man must have had, to hear of his 
being simultaneously Rector of Harrow, Archdeacon 
of Ely, Canon of Ely, Canon of Windsor, Dean of 
Christ Church, Oxford, and Dean of Westminster, 
and Bishop nominate of Southwell; not to mention 
the offices of Tutor and Almoner to the king, and 
the Chancellorship of his University. 

His biographer writes quite incidentally, that it 
has been thought by some that “he had more regard 
to his private advantage than to the true interests 
of the Church,” and without any notice of these 
frightful pluralities, proceeds to vindicate him from 
the imputation touching the alienation of the 


ae ey, 


a 


The Anglican Reform. a3 


episcopal estates. History has certainly recorded 
one instance of his determination to maintain the 
property of the See of Ely, though unsuccessfully. 


Sir Christopher Hatton, one of the Queen’s His resist. 


7 t a ance to the 
favourites, cast an envious eye upon the beautiful Queen’s un- 
Palace and garden in Holborn; and to gratify his Pere 
desire she commanded the Bishop to transfer a 
portion of it to him without delay. Whatever his 
feelings may have been on other occasions, he had 
strength enough to resist this iniquitous claim, but 
only to call forth the ever memorable rejoinder from 
the imperious Queen, “Proud Prelate, you know 
well what you were afore I made you what you are. 

Tf you do not immediately comply with my request 
I will unfrock you, by Gop.” And the property 
was alienated, as the name “ Hatton Garden” still 
indicates. 
Considering their value, we can hardly be sur- 
prised that his benefices were speedily seized and that 
he himself was lodged in the Tower when the Pro- 
testant King was no longer able to befriend him, 
Two circumstances may be here mentioned as Proofs of 


testifying to his doctrinal opinions. At Oxford he ee 


issued a Commission for the discovery of books °P™"°™ 
which encouraged Papal pretensions or Roman 


doctrine, and in the spirit of a true iconoclast ordered 


Dean May: 
his eager- 
ness for 
reform. 


24 The Anglican Reform. 


whole Libraries to be destroyed, without any 
respect to their historical value or antiquarian 
interest. 

Again, when his brother Revisionist, Day of 
Chichester, had stirred up the people of Sussex to 
resist the removal of their altars, he was selected by 
the King’s Council as the fittest person they could 
find to counteract his influence by a preaching 
campaign in support of the Protestant Faith. 

In May, the Dean of St. Paul’s, Cox found an 
entirely kindred spirit, as the following episode in 
his life will sufficiently indicate. On the publication 
of an edict by the Privy Council for the destruction 
of all images in churches, the work of demolition 
was not only sanctioned, but even encouraged by the 
appointed guardian of that Cathedral. The Rood, 
and the attendant figures of St. Mary and St. John, 
were roughly thrown down, and the wealth of sacred 
treasure in plate and jewels and vestments which 
had accumulated out of the offerings of the faithful 
to an almost incalculable extent was despoiled with- 
out even a show of resistance on the part of the 
Dean; and there is good reason to believe that it 
was done at his own instigation. 

If this be true we cannot but admire him for his 
consistency, for much that he encouraged entailed 


\ 


The Anglican Reform. 25 


grievous loss upon, if it did not actually impoverish, 
both himself and the Chapter which he repre- 
sented. 

He was what we may call an advanced Reformer, 
and a strong advocate of Liturgical revision. 


Of Taylor’s views we are not altogether ignorant ; Taylor. 


on one important question, which all the Revisionists 
were called upon to answer in writing, viz., “what 
is the oblation and sacrifice of Christ in the mass ?” 
it is recorded that he, in company with Cox, took the 
lowest ground, asserting it to “mean nothing more 
than prayer, thanksgiving, and the remembrance of 
our Saviour’s Passion.” 

This was a strange reaction from the opinions 
which he had put forward in the previous reign, 
when he preached a sermon upon Transubstantiation, 
which led to the martyrdom of Barnes. 

It is worthy of notice also that he was selected 
for promotion by King Edward VI. just at the time 
when his Majesty was most especially under ultra- 
Protestant influence.? 


Of Haynes there is little to be said, save that like Haynes 


the members of the Lower House already described 
he had a strong leaning towards radical change. 
The two that remain were men of a very different 


1 He was consecrated Bishop of Lincoln in 1552 a.p. 


Robertson 
and 
Redmayn, 


26 Lhe Anglican Reform, 


type. Both Robertson and Redmayn were more 
Catholic-minded. 

Both too were widely renowned for their great 
learning, the former having earned a reputation as 
a grammarian unsurpassed in his generation, and 
the latter holding one of the highest positions in the 
University of Cambridge. 

The fact that Robertson obtained preferment! from 
Queen Mary, and that Redmayn tried to draw back 
from the sanction, which he had reluctantly given 
by his signature to the Reformed Service-book, are 
adequate proof of the line which they must have 
taken in the deliberations at Windsor. 

Such, briefly drawn, are some of the characteristic 
features of the individual members of that famous 
Committee to whom the Catholic Church of England 
owes so much, 

But we must not fail to mention that even these 
men, so learned, so well qualified in many ways, 
and so thoroughly impartial as a body, were not 
held to be competent by their own unaided counsels 
to accomplish the work of Revision. 

It was considered desirable to enlarge the Com- 


1The Deanery of Durham, which, however, he was compelled 
to resign in favour of Horne, its former holder, on the accession of 
Elizabeth, 


. 
b, 
y 

¥ 
: 


The Anglican Reform. i 


mittee, so as to make it if possible still more The en- 

3 3 largemen 
representative, and to give all parts of the country of the Cone 
mittee to 
increase the 
public con- 
fidence. 


and every one who had any interest at stake a voice 
, in the proceedings. A large body of assessors! were 
added. They were not admitted to the Council 
Chamber, as their numbers would have made them 
unwieldy as a working Committee, but a series of 
questions bearing upon the most crucial matters 
under dispute were submitted to them, and their 
replies were duly weighed, and doubtless had no 
little influence upon the deliberations. Among 
these, whose opinions were thus invited, were the 
Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Sarum, re- 
presenting directly the “Uses” of their Sees, while 
the Bishop of St. Asaph was appointed for the 
guardianship of the Bangor worship. 

The first and most important change was in the 
language. 

In the Preface to the First Prayer-book we read, eh a 
“The service in the Church of England (these many yeas 
years) hath been read in Latin to the people, which of the 
they understood not; so that they have heard with ieee 


1 The assessors were Holgate, Archbishop of York, Bonnez, 
Bishop of London, Tonstal of Durham, Heath of Worcester, Repps 
of Norwich, Parfew of St. Asaph, Salcot of Sarum, Sampson of 
Coventry and Lichfield, Aldrich of Carlisle, Bush of Bristol, and 
Farrar of St. David’s. Cf. CaRDWELL’s Two Litt, of Hd. VI. ; 
Re Pref, xiii. 


Roman 
arguments 
for a dead 
language. 


28 The Anglican Reform. 


their ears only: and their hearts, spirit, and mind 
have not been edified thereby.” 

So long as Rome was the centre of European 
society, and Latin was generally spoken, there was 
no inconsistency in maintaining it as the vehicle of 
Western worship, but long after Rome had lost this 
pre-eminence, and her language had ceased to be 
intelligible to the common mind, “the once living 
outpourings of devotion” were suffered to continue 
only “fossilised into cold and lifeless forms.” 

The arguments in defence of the continuance 
which the medieval Church set up were very 
plausible. It was urged that “the majesty of re- 
ligion would suffer and grow cheap if the most 
solemn and mysterious parts of the service should 
be understood by the audience;” or that there 
were obvious advantages for the protection of the 
Faith in embalming her Forms in a language which 
is beyond the reach of change; or once more, that 
it served as an abiding witness to the unity of the 
Church throughout Catholic Christendom, that every 
branch of it should offer up their prayers and praises 
in one and the same tongue. 

These reasons were plausible enough, but the 
majority of the Revisionists saw that there were 
reasons for change which far outweighed them. The 


TS ae ee oe ee? oe 
# 
‘ 

4 


ne 


The Anglican Reform. 29 


edification of the worshipper ought always to be a 


matter of primary importance. St. Paul had clearly Not scrip. 


so regarded it, when he declared that he would p 
“rather speak five words in the Church” in such a 
manner as to teach others, “ than ten thousand words 
in an unknown tongue.” And the principle was 
upheld by the Primitive Church, which clothed its 
Liturgies in Greek, or Latin, or Syriac, or Coptic, 
according to the language of the people who used 
them. It was enforced, moreover, by the say- 
ings of the Fathers;? and the Law, both civil and 
canonical, contained the plainest injunctions for its 
maintenance. The Code of Justinian? provided 
“that all priests should celebrate the sacred obla- 
tion” in such a manner that “thereby the minds of 
the hearers might be raised up with greater devotion 
to set forth the praises of Gop, according to the 


” 


Apostle’s teaching ;” and that this was interpreted 


as enjoining a language “understanded of the 
people” is shown by the attempts of those who 
violated the practice to erase the enactment from 
the Statute-book. 


11 Cor. xiv. 19. 

2Cf. ORIGEN, Contra Celsum, viii. 37. St. CHrysost. Hom. 
xxxv. in 1 Cor. xiv. 

3 Justinian’s law enforcing this was afterwards erased from the 
Latin versions, but it is acknowledged by Bellarmine.—Cf. JER. 
TAYLOR’s Dissuasive of Popery, Pt. I. c i 


30 The Anglcan Reform. 


Again the Canon Law? by the authority of Pope 
Innocent and the Lateran Council, 1215 A.D., enforced 
“the celebration of Divine Service according to the — 
diversity of ceremonies and languages.” 

When then the Windsor Assembly were called 
upon to deal with this question, they knew that 
they should be fully supported if they abandoned 
the Latin tongue. 

What We stated before some of the causes which 
strength- 3 
ened the created a yearning on the part of the people fora 


ublic : : . : : i 
eeariing more intelligent worship ; and it was quite obvious 


seen that the use of the English Litany,” put forth a few 


inworship. years before, and the reading of portions of the Com- 
munion office in their own language, had greatly 
intensified their desire, and the Revisionists felt 
that they could best satisfy the wants of the nation 
by giving them a complete English Prayer-book. 

Thebeauty And while commending them for giving us a 


of language 2 A : 
Snwhichthe Service-book in our own language, we are constrained 


Foms Were to oo further, and express an additional obligation 
to them for having clothed it in English, the beauty 
of which has rarely been equalled, and never sur- 
passed, even in the best age of literary excellence.® 
To whatever part of it we turn, whether hymns, or 


1(Cf. Jer. TaYLor’s Dissuasive of Popery, Pt. 1. c. i. 
21544 A.D. 3 Cf. Quarterly Review, No. 298, p. 416. 


i NE RE AR DN X 


The Anglhcan Reform. 31 


prayers, or exhortations, the style is such that it 
cannot be improved. “The essential qualities of 
devotion and eloquence,” as Macaulay says,! “con- 
ciseness, majestic simplicity, pathetic earnestness of 
supplication, sobered by a profound reverence, are 
common between the translations and the originals. 
But in the subordinate graces of diction the originals 
must be allowed to be far inferior to the translations. 
. .. The diction of our Book of Common Prayer 
. has directly or indirectly contributed to form the 
diction of almost every great English writer, and 
has extorted the admiration of the most accomplished 
infidels, and of the most accomplished Nonconfor- 
mists, of such men as David Hume and Robert Hall.” 

As an illustration of this high praise, we have only Illustrated 
to mention the very noblest of our Liturgical hymns, ee 
the Te Dewm. In point of accuracy and exactness 

of rendering there” is in parts no doubt something 


1 Hist. of Engl. iii. 475. 

2 The opening line is an unfortunate rendering and quite un- 
justifiable. It should be “‘ We praise Thee as God.” It is not at 
all improbable that this hymn was, in its original form, such an 
one as Pliny says the Christians used in his time, ‘‘carmen 
dicentes secum invicem Christo quasi Deo.” —Zp. ad Traj. 

Eusebius also testifies to the custom of ascribing Divinity to Christ 
in hymns. — Zccl. Hist. v. 28, cf. also Lippon’s Bamp. Lect. vii. 

Other inaccurate renderings are ‘‘ goodly fellowship,” for 
‘praiseworthy number,” ‘‘noble army” for ‘‘white-robed,” (as 
in an old English version, “‘the white oost ;”)—‘‘When Thou 
tookest upon Thee,” etc., for ‘‘ When with a view to deliverance 


From the 
Collects. 


22 The Anglhcan Reform. 


to be desired, but in rhythm, in vigour of arrange- 
ment, and in its solemn grandeur, it is incomparably 
superior to the original Latin. 

And if we turn to the Collects, the same expres- 
sion of unfeigned praise is equally due. Take one 
or two specimens—first, of a simple translation ; 
and that we may not appear to be making a careful 
selection to support our opinion, we will quote the 
most familiar perhaps of all. 

“Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with Thy 
most gracious favour, and further us with Thy con- 
tinual help ; that in all our works begun, continued, 
and ended in Thee, we may glorify Thy holy 
Name: and finally, by Thy mercy obtain everlast- 
ing life,” etc. 

Now this, as it happens, is one of the most 


Thou tookest upon Thee humanity.” —‘‘ Make them to be numbered 
with thy saints in glory,” for, ‘‘to be rewarded with glory :”— 
“‘numerari” was probably substituted by a clerical] error for 
“‘munerari,” and the “in” prefixed to ‘‘gloria” to complete the 
construction ;—Possibly ‘‘ Vouchsafe to keep us this day,” for 
“that day,” viz., the day of judgment, though iste is used medi- 
evally for hic ;—and perhaps ‘‘ never be confounded,” for ‘* not to 
be confounded for ever,” so an old version, ‘‘Be I not schent for 
ever,” though here again ‘‘ never” is so rendered in the Vulg. ; ef. 
Ps. xv. (xiv.) 5; xxxi. (exx.) 1.” 
The rhythm is manifestly improved in verses 7, 8, 9, The 

original runs— 

Te gloriosus Apostolorum chorus, 

Te Prophetarum laudabilis numerus, 

Te Martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus. 


\ 


The Anglican Reform. 33 


beautiful of the ancient Latin Collects :—Actiones 
nostras, queesumus, Domine, et aspirando praeveni et 
_adjuvando prosequere ; ut cuncta nostra operatio et 
a te incipiat et per te coepta finiatur, per Jesum, 
etc. 

But beautiful as it is, we are sure that no com- 
petent critic would venture to say that it has lost 
one particle of its peculiar grace by being clothed in 
an English dress, 

Then take a sample of the original compositions. 
These were chiefly introduced to supersede the cor- 
rupt forms in use for the Festivals of Saints and 
Martyrs.! Again, avoiding selection, let us quote 
the Collect for All Saints’ Day, which is oftenest on 
our lips, 

“O Almighty Gop, who hast knit together Thine 
elect in one communion and fellowship in the mys- 
tical body of Thy Son Christ our LorD: grant us 
grace so to follow Thy blessed saints in all virtuous 
and godly living that we may come to those unspeak- 
able joys, which Thou hast prepared for them that 
unfeignedly love Thee, through,” ete. 


1 All the Saints’ Days Collects were composed in 1549 a.D., except 
those for St. Bartholomew and the Conversion of St. Paul, which 
were only altered, and those for St. Andrew and St. Stephen, the 
former of which was written in 1552 a.D., the latter rewritten in 
1661 a.D. 


fo) 


34 The Anglican Reform. 


But it is invidious to single out any special 


portion for commendation; “the whole book,” it 6 
has been well said, “is a very casket of trea- 
sures.” 


The second alteration in order of utility was the 
oe ase increased value set upon the public reading of Holy 
in public Scripture. During medieval times the consecutive 
‘he a reading of this had been greatly interrupted by 

“the planting in uncertain stories and legends 
with a multitude of Responds.”! These last came 
to be regarded of such consequence that they 
were made long and elaborate, while the passages 
from Scripture were proportionably curtailed: in 
short, the Lessons and the Responds exchanged 
places. 

The result of this was that the primary concep- 
tion of the latter, which was to- be simply illustra- 
tive, was entirely obscured, and the Respond became 
an independent anthem, confusing instead of un- 
folding the meaning of what was read. 

Furthermore, the Legendary stories and acts of 
the Saints, especially at their commemorations, 
which were exceedingly numerous, were generally 


1 Cf. Preface concerning the Service of the Church. Responsories 
or responds were short verses from Scripture originally intended 
to give the key-note of what was being read. It was usual to 
introduce them after every three or four verses, 


The Anglican Reform. 35 


chosen as the Lessons for the day in preference to 
the Life of our LorD, and the sayings of His imme- 
diate followers. 

The merit of initiating a reform in this is claimed The earliest 
by a Cardinal of the Roman Church,! who reinstated Raed 
the Word of Gop in its rightful place, and showed Hons 
how much store he set by the change, by inscribing 
on the title of his Revised Breviary the motto, 
“Search the Scriptures.” 

This Breviary was put into the hands of the 
Revisionists as likely to prove a valuable aid in their 
work, and there is every reason to believe that not 
only in this but upon other important points it 
carried considerable weight. 

In largely expanding the passages of Scripture, and 
in drawing both from the Old and New Testaments, 
the Revisionists illustrated their determination to re- 
cover primitive usage wherever it seemed expedient. 
In the description of the early services found in the 
Apostolical Constitutions? it would seem that as many 


1 Cardinal Quignonez, a Spanish Bishop, revised the Breviary, 
and published it for the use of the clergy and monasteries, under 
the sanction of Clement vu. in 1536 4.D. The title of his edition 
was ‘‘Breviarium Romane Curie ex sacra et canonica Scriptura 
necnon sanctorum historiis summa vigilantia decerptis accurate 
digestum.” It was suppressed in 1576 a.D. 

2 Lib. ii. e. lvii. The date of their composition is uncertain: 
the first six books probably in the third century, the others 4 
little later, 


The Calen- 
dar and its 
perplex- 
ities. 


36 The Anglican Reform. 


as four Lessons of considerable length were read, 
two from either Testament; and in the middle of 
the second century Justin Martyr? says, “that the 
memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Pro- 
phets are read as long as time permits.” This latter, 
however, is only noted of Sunday. To adapt the 
principle to the week-days was a most judicious step, 
and finds ample justification in its propriety. 

The third change was in the Calendar or Pie. The 
directions for the variable parts of the services in 
the old uses were complicated in the extreme. 
Perhaps the best idea of the minuteness of detail 
may be gathered from the fact that there is extant 
in the library of York Minster a volume, the entire 
contents of which are regulations of the Pie !? 

Indeed so involved were the rules to be observed 
that the title. by which the body of directions was 
designated has become a very symbol of perplexity 
and confusion. Nothing could have been happier 

1 Apol. i. Ixvii. Cf. St. CHRrysost. Hom. xxiv. in Rom, ‘Tell 
me, what Prophet, what Apostle was read to us to-day?” It may 
be seen also from the Canons of the Councils of Laodicea and 
Carthage that both the Old and New Testaments were read ip 
Church. Cf. BrncHam’s Antig. xiv. iii. 2. 

2 The origin of the term Pie is a vexed question. It has been 
derived from the initial letter of rivaé, a tablet, and from pica, a 
magpie. The allusion in the latter is to the party-coloured letters 


in which the directions were written. Before the 15th century 
these regulations were called Ordinale. 


The Anglican Reform. 37 


than the language in which Cranmer expressed the 
feelings of the Revisionists on the subject. “The 
number,” he says, “and hardness of the rules 
called the Pie, and the manifold changings of the 
service, was the cause, that to turn the book only 
was so hard and intricate a matter that many times 
there was more business to find out what should be 
read than to read it when it was found out.” 

All. these difficulties were cleared away and a 
simple Calendar was substituted containing the order 
of Lessons, and preceded by a Table of Psalms, 
arranged for Matins and Evensong for a month. 

A fourth change rendered necessary by the aboli- The con- 
tion of the Religious Houses was the union of the af sora 
three Service-books, Breviary, Manual, and Missal, 
in one volume, and the curtailment of the number 
of separate services. 

The Revisionists determined to recover, for the The claims 
mass of the people, a participation in public worship, pci: 
which they had well-nigh lost through the establish- pata 
ment of the Monastic or Canonical “Hours.” The bears 
multiplication of services had led them to regard 
worship as an impossibility for men engaged in the 
ordinary occupations of secular life; and instead of 
selecting opportunities from the greater number, 


they came to look upon it as a luxury for the 


38 The Anglican Reform. 


occupants of Religious houses, and left it almost 
entirely to them. Recognising the fact that these 
were properly the exceptions only, and that what 
might have been appropriate enough for the few 
was ill-adapted to the majority, the Committee 
resolved at once upon a reduction of the services. 
They went back to the early ages for guidance as to 
their number, but they must have been perplexed 
by the evidence. Some writers! spoke of, three, 
others of two only. The Revisionists very wisely 
decided to adopt the latter, and thus restore the 
principle which had existed all through the history 
of the elder dispensation, and offer the voice of 
praise and thanksgiving like the Incense of the Altar 
and the daily Sacrifice in the morning and at even. 

The Seven “ Hours,” for all of which there were 
special offices in the Breviary, were condensed into 


1 TERTULLIAN, 190 A.D., speaks of the third, sixth, and ninth 
hours as more solemn than the rest.—De Orat., c. 25. 

St. JEROME mentions the same as the times when, according to 
Ecclesiastical tradition, the knees are to be bent to GoD.—Comm., 
im Dan., vi. 10. 

The Apostolical Constitutions, on the other hand, testify to two 
services only. The Bishop is directed to exhort the people to 
attend Church constantly morning and evening every day, and the 
63d Psalm is appointed for the former, the 141st for the latter.— 
Ind. ii. c. lix. 

EPIPHANIUS also, in giving an account of the customs of the 
Church, mentions morning hymns and evening prayers as con- 
stantly used, but makes no allusion to any other.—Hzposit. Fidev, 
n, 23 (t. i. p. 1106). . 


The Anglican Reform. 39 


Matins and Evensong—the ancient Nocturns, Lauds 
and Prime becoming amalgamated in the former, 
Vespers and Compline in the latter. The remaining 
three, Tierce, Sext, and None, or the Lesser Hours, 
were set aside altogether, because they had long 
fallen into disuse except in the monasteries; and as 
these were now dissolved, it would have served no 
purpose to have retained what specially belonged to 
them. To suit the fresh adaptation, the Psalms, 
which had hitherto been divided into seven 
portions? for a weekly course, were so arranged as 
to be read through once in a month. 
Now it is worth while observing how, in carrying — ancient 


out this consolidation of services, they carefully ad- followed 
the changed 


hered to the ancient lines, and preserved in all their services, 


integrity the distinctive features of public worship. 
The ideal Form of service has three component 
parts, though byno means in equal proportions. These 
are praise, instruction, and prayer. The primary con- 
ception gave by far the highest place to the first of 
these; indeed the other two are entirely subordinate. 
There is a beautiful legend told of St. Theresa » 
which illustrates this view in a very striking manner. 
As she lay asleep, the vision of a strange and awful 


1 The bulk of the Psalms were sung at Matins and Vespers, 
twelve at the former, five at the latter. The greater part of the 
119th was divided between the Lesser Hours. The remainder were 
distributed between Lauds, Prime, and Compline. 


The prim- 
ary object 
of worship. 


40 The Anglican Reform. 


woman passed before her. In one hand she carried 
a pitcher of water, in the other a pan of flaming fire. 
And when the Saint asked in fear and trembling 
whither she was going with her mysterious burden, 
she replied, “I go to burn up heaven and to quench 
hell, that henceforth men may learn to worship Gop, 
not for any hope of future reward in the one, nor 
for fear of threatened torment in the other, but for 
what He is—for Himself alone.” 

Praise, then, the ascription of honour to Gop, 
simply and solely because it is due unto His Name, 
is the dominant element of public worship, and that 
which blends our offering with the songs of angelic 
hosts. 

But subordinate to this there have always! been 
other considerations present to the mind of the 
worshipper, and in a confessedly imperfect state it 
could hardly have been otherwise. Meditation upon 
Gop’s Word, and the record of His works in Creation 
and Providence, exalts our conception of His great- 
ness, and creates a desire to know more of His Will; 
and thus the consciousness of our own weakness is 
borne in upon us, and we pray to the Author of all 
power and might to help our infirmities and supply 


our needs. 


1 In the passage of the Apostol. Constit. above cited, it is stated 
that the prophets and the account of the Resurrection were read, 
and prayers offered up afterwards. —Lib. ii. ¢. lix. 


The Anghcan Reform. 4l 


Thus it is that psalms or hymns, lections, prayers 
or intercessions, have been linked together by a 
threefold cord in common worship. 

From a comparison of the following Tables it will 
be seen at a glance that the first Revised Service- 
book preserved the characteristic features of the 
ancient offices, and while the sequence of each part 
was generally retained, due prominence, as of old, 


was given to the element of praise.1 The Revision- The reason 


ists seem to have had the triple division in their 
mind when they placed in the forefront of their 
service the Lorp’s Prayer and the “ Venite.” Both 
alike strike the key-note of all that is to follow. 
The first three clauses of the Paternoster? correspond 
to the Psalms and Songs of praise; the petition 
“Give us this day our daily bread” has a special 
application to the reception of knowledge through 
the reading of Scripture; and the rest represent all 
prayer and intercession. So with the “Venite.”* No 


1 This was more largely provided for in the First Prayer-book 
than in any of the subsequent Revisions. In each and all of these 
the element of prayer has encroached upon that of praise. 

2 Cf. FrEEMAN’s Principles of Divine Service, vol. i. ¢. iv. s. 3. 

3 The great antiquity of the use of this Invitation, dating 
certainly to the third century, as we know on the authority of 
St. Athanasius, as well as its peculiar propriety, are sufficient 
reasons for not omitting it in the Shortened Form of Service 
sanctioned by the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act. It is true 
that discretion is given to the Minister to add, in its proper place, 
any canticle he may think fit, but in our judgment the “‘ Venite’ 
should have found a place in the necessary portion of the Service. 


42 


Lhe Anglican Reform. 


fitter prelude to worship could be found, since it 
embraced a triple call, in verses 1-5, to sing Gon’s 
praises; in 6 and 7, to fall down before Him in 
adoration and prayer; in 8-11, to hear His Word. 


TABLE OF SERVICES. 


MORNING. 


CANONICAL HouRS IN THE SARUM BREVIARY. 


Martins. 


In the Name... 
Our Father... 
Ave Maria... 

O Lorn, open... 


O Gop, make speed... 


Glory be to the 
Father... 

Alleluia. 

Invitatory. 


Venite. 
12 Psalms and Anti- 


phons. 
18 Psalms (Sundays). 


Benedictions. 


Lections with 
Responds. 
Te Deum (Sundays). 


| Lavps. | PRIME.’ 


O Gop, make... 
Glory be, etce.... 


Alleluia. 


5 Psalms and 
Antiphons. 

Jubilate (Sundays). 

Canticle from the 
O. T. 

Benedicite (Sund.), 

Capitulum. 

Hymn. 

Benedictus. 

Suffrages. 

Collect for the Day. 


»» for Peace. 


In the Name... 
Our Father... 


O Gop, make... 
Glory be, etc. ... 


Alleluia, 
Hymn, 


3 Psalms and 
Antiphons, 
9 Ps. (Sundays). 


Athanasian 
Creed. 


Capitulum. 
Lesser Litany. 


Our Father... 
Suffrages. 
Confession. 
Absolution. 
Collect for Grace. 
Intercessions, 
Thanksgiving. 


First PRAYER-BOOK 
| OF EpwaRD vi. 


Matins,. 


Our Father... 


O Lorp, open... 
O Gop, make... | 
Glory be, etc.... 


Praise ye the Lorn. 
Alleluia (from © 
Easter to Trinity). 


Venite. 


Psalms in order, 
with Doxology. 
1st Lesson, O, T. 


Te Deum or (in 
Lent) Benedicite. 

2d Lesson, N. T, 

Benedictus, 

Lesser Litany. 

Creed, 

Our Father. 

Suffrages. ’ 

Collect for the Day. 
oa Peace, 
» Grace. 


—_—_—————— SSS 


Se 


"es 1 ee 
’ 


Li» Saul 
‘ 


Sl os 


‘ 


if 
, 


ee 


e 


The Anglican Reform. 


43 


TABLE OF SERVICES; 


Canonical Hoors IN THE SARUM BREVIARY. 


VESPERS. 


In the Name... 
Our Father... 
“Ave Maria. 

O Gop, make... 
Glory be... 
Alleluia. 


5 Psalms and Antiphons. 


Capitulum. 
Hymn. 


Magnificat. 


Collect for the Day. 
Memoria of the B. V. 


EVENING. 


ComMPLINE, 


In the Name... 
Our Father... 
Ave Maria. 

O Gop, make... 
Glory be... 
Alleluia. 

4 Psalms. 
Capitulum. 

H 


ymn. y 
Nunc Dimittis. 
Lesser Litany. 
Our Father... 
Creed. 
Confession. 
Absolution. 
Snffrages. 


Collect for Peace. 


Intercessions. 
Thanksgiving. 


First PRAYER-BOOK OF 
EDWARD VI. , 


EvVENSONG. 


Our Father... 


O Gop, make... 
Glory be... 
Praise ye the Lord. 
Alleluia. 

Psalms in order. 
1st Lesson, O. T. 
Magnificat. 

2d Lesson, N. T. 
Nunc Dimittis. 


Collect for the Day. 
on »» Peace. 
” »” Aid. 


One element alone of importance is wanting in The 


absence of 


the Revised Order, viz., Confession and Absolution. Confession 


and Ab- 


It is probable that they were omitted as being of sojution. 


late introduction into public services. 


There is no 


doubt some testimony to the former in St. Basil, 


who narrates how the congregation immediately on 


entering the house of prayer “confess to Gop,” but 


the Council of Laodicea points to this confession as 


1 Ad Cleric. Neocesarienses, ep. 207. 


44 The Anglican Reform. 


being made in silence. And in the Western Church 
there is an entire absence of allusion to the custom 
for many centuries. It finds no place in the “ Bene- 
dictine Rule.”1 And what applies to Confession is 
of course equally applicable to Absolution, They 
stand or fall together. We shall see hereafter under 
what circumstances the judgment of Cranmer’s Com- 
mittee was revised. 

These were the changes upon which the Revi- 
sionists laid most stress, as we may gather from the 
Preface with which they introduced: their reformed 
Service-book. In our present Prayer-book it is 
placed second, following that which was prefixed 
at the final revision. 

Many observances and ceremonies which they 
retained, wisely or unwisely, will be brought under 
our notice in future lectures. It may, however, be 


The general well at this stage to state their own account of the 


principles 
which 
guided the 
Revision- 
ists. 


principle which guided them in their decisions: 
such ceremonies as were visibly superstitious and 
tended to darken the Gospel and prove cumbersome 
to religion they rejected,” while those were retained 
which guarded the worship of God from nakedness 


and contempt. But while we pass these by we feel 
1 Its first mention is said to be in the Gemma Anime, written 
in the eleventh century. 
2 Cf. Dopp’s Church History, qnotaas in COLLIER, v. 299, n. 


The Anghcan Reform. 45 
that no review of a Prayer-book could be regarded — 
as satisfactory which failed to notice the relationship 
which it bore to the much disputed doctrines of the 
sacrificial aspect of, and the nature of the Presence 
of Christ in, the Holy Eucharist, 

Now it is quite obvious that the Revisionists 
provided more largely for the actual participation 
of the laity, and gave fuller recognition to the 
Communion aspect of the celebration, which had 
been obscured in medizval times especially by the 
frequency of solitary masses in which the priest 
alone communicated. But while doing this they 
were extremely careful to avoid bringing the Their 


ete : : 5 > : . , jealous pre- 
sacrificial view into discredit: in proof of which ‘servation 


I would appeal to the general adoption of the term pales as 
“altar,” and to the great prominence assigned to 
the Prayer of Oblation, in which it was said that 
“we do celebrate and make before Thy Divine 
Majesty, with these Thy holy gifts, the memorial 
which Thy Son hath willed us to make.” But they 
were determined at the same time to re-establish 
completely the principle of general communion, by 
the long obscuration of which the ordinance had 
been deprived of so much of its power and 
efficacy. 


Then, touching the doctrine of the Real Presence, 


Their 
wisdom in 
avoiding 
definitions 
of doubtful 
matters, 


46 The Anghcan Reform. 


there can be no doubt that the Revisionists retained 
“the ancient belief from which no Apostolic branch 
of the Church had ever swerved,” viz., that the con- 
secrated elements were in some way the Body and 
Blood of Christ.t 

The words of administration used by them in 
either kind were the first part only of the formulas 


now in use, “The Body of our Lorp Jesus Christ 


which was given for thee,”——-and the “ Blood of our 
Lorp Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve 
thy body and soul unto everlasting life,” and they 
necessitate this view. It is strengthened moreover 
by the manifested anxiety of the ultra-Protestant 
divines to get rid of them, which clearly indicates 
how they were interpreted. 

But while they “affirmed in unequivocal language, 
and as the basis of all Eucharistic truth, what the 
consecrated elements were,’ with a wisdom which 
cannot be over-estimated, they made no show even 
of explaining the manner of Christ’s Presence, but 
left it, as it ever should be left, a mystery impene- 
trable to finite intelligence. 

The character of the work effected by the first 
revision of the Old Service-books has not unfre- 


1 Cf, Freeman's Principles, Introd. pt. 0., sect. xi. MAssING- 
BERD's Eng. Ref., pp. 400-2, 


sy \Mha 
ae ale 


The Anghcan Reform. 47 


quently been misrepresented. There is an idea too Prevalent 
errors con- 


widely prevalent, that a complete revolution in cerning the 
Church-worship was carried out at this time, whereas fone of 
nothing could have been further from the thoughts sa 
and intentions of those who undertook the revision, 

as any one may see who will investigate the prin- 

ciples by which, as we have desired to show, they 

were really actuated. Their aim was restoration, 

and in the process of attaining to it, they exercised 

the most careful discrimination between the old and — 

the new, and, while cutting away without hesitation 

the later overgrowths, preserved with scrupulous 

care the ancient landmarks. And the impartial 

critic will not hesitate to acknowledge that the 
conservative and reverent spirit which animated 

them is abundantly evidenced in the result of their 

efforts. 

But we pass on to the close. The arduous labours The com- 
of the Committee came to an end, and the report dee 
of their deliberations was drawn up and laid upon 
the table to be attested by the sign-manual of the 
individual members: and it is not a little remark- 
able that notwithstanding their diversity of opinions, 
and the warm discussions which many of the ques- 
tions had*provoked, the result which they had ~ 


attained was held to be so satisfactory, that there 


The due 
authorisa- 
tion of the 
results of 
the re- 
vision, 


48 The Anglican Reform. 


was but one dissentient: Day of Chichester alone? 
protesting that his conscience compelled him to 
withhold his assent to the document. 

The next step, of course, was to give it legal force. 

Convocation met in November, but though we 
have no records of what actually took place, we have 
the authority of the King for stating that it was 
agreed to by “the whole clergy .. . of this our realm 
in their synods and provincial conyocations.”2 Then 
after being presented to the Crown it was laid before 
the nobility and commons assembled in parliament, 
and on January 15,1549 A.D., an Act of Uniformity 
was passed enjoining the use of the Revised Prayer- 
book after Whitsuntide, in every parish of the 
King’s dominions “throughout England, Wales, 
Calais, and the marches of the same.”* The post- 


1Skip and Thirlby signed the Book, but protested against the 
Act of Uniformity.—Soamgs, p. 401. 

2 The Acts of Convocation are lost, having perished in the Great 
Fire in 1666 a.p., but the King states in answer to the Devonshire 
petition that the book was sanctioned by Convocation. The 
letter is preserved in Bonner’s Register. Cf. LatHBuRY’s Hist. of 
Convoc., p. 188, n. ; and HARDWICK’s Ref., p. 213, n. 

3 It was allowed by the Act to use the Book, if it could be pro- 
cured, as soon as Easter. It was used in divers London churches 
on Easter-day, which fell on the 21st of April, and most probably 
also in some of the Provinces ; for, as the rising of the Devonshire 
rebels took place on the 10th of June, and Whitsunday was on the 
9th, the Service must have become known before“this Festival. 
Cf. Latnpury, wid. 


The Anglican Reform. 49 


ponement of the operation of the Act appears to have 
been unnecessarily long, but this particular time was 
selected by the Revisers for the purpose of specially 
dedicating their work to Gop on the Feast of the 
Holy Ghost, by Whose controlling influence they 
believed their counsels to have been guided through- 
out, and brought to a successful issue at last.t 

And now that all the legal formalities had been 
gone through, let us see how the Book was received. 

Some of the London Churches set the example of 
compliance with the law, and superseded the old 
Service-books even before the term of respite had 
expired.” 

Throughout the country, not a few of the clergy, Themanner 


: 2 in which 
who were averse to any alteration, accepted it because the new 


Service- 
book was 


led to anticipate; many of the laity also welcomed Vee 


the changes were less violent than they had been 


it gladly, not so much for any modification in 
doctrine, as from the fact that being written in 
English, it made their worship more interesting, and 
converted what in too many cases had been merely 
a dumb show into a living intelligent transaction. 


1 Cf. The Act of Uniformity. 

2° After Easter beganne the service in English in divers 
churches, and at Whitsuntide at Paules by the commandement of 
the dean.” —STowe, 1038. ‘‘ At Easter some began to officiate by 
it, followed by others, as soon as books could be provided.”— 
HEYLIN’s Zccles. Rest., 74, quoted by LATHBURY, 139, n. 


D 


Outbreaks 
of fanatical 
opposition, 


50 The Anghcan Reform. 


But there were many exceptions, Some of the priests 
expressed an obstinate determination to resist the 
operation of the Act, and were contented to suffer 
for conscience sake. Others openly conformed to 
the obligation, but secretly continued to celebrate 
as of old, and, as this created considerable trouble 
and confusion, the Lords of the Council took violent 
measures to remedy the evil. This, however, was 
trifling, compared to other difficulties which arose 
among the laity, and plunged certain disaffected parts 
of the country into the miseries of civil war. 

In these counties the proclamation of the Act 
was followed by insurrection. The first outbreak 
was in Devonshire and Cornwall. In the latter of 
these, one thing, which had especially recommended 
the Revised Book elsewhere, had little if any force 
at all. The change from Latin to English was no 
gain to the Cornishmen, to whom one was as unin- 
telligible as the other. 

The primary cause of the rebellion is to be found 
not in any spontaneous outburst of religious feeling, 
or general aversion to the Reformed service on the 
part of the people themselves, but to the fanaticism 
of a few individuals who urged them on. 

Body;} one of the Royal Commissioners appointed 


1 SoamEs’s Reformation, iii. 440. 


The Anglican Reform. 51 


to destroy idolatrous shrines, was stabbed to the 
heart by a misguided priest, who, to justify murder, 
called upon the people to imitate his zeal, and save 
their Churches from desecration. Other priests went 
about the country preaching what the Mahometans 
call “a Jehad,” and invested the movement with 
all the character of a religious war; and when open 
hostilities broke out, they carried the Host on to 
the field of battle. 

A secondary cause was an infatuated conviction Misguided 
that in some way the Revisionists were associated pease 
with the abolition of the Common Lands. Many 
of the nobility to whom Abbey estates had been 
granted attempted to turn them to the best 
account, and made no scruple of enclosing commons, 
without any respect to the rights of the poor to 
pasturage. 

At Sampford Courtenay in Devonshire, the priest The extent 
in charge professed his intention of acceding to the ea 
change of Liturgy on the appointed day, but had the Sou 
secretly instigated the people to stop him by force, 
and claim the Latin Mass. From this village the 
flames of discontent spread! rapidly, and within a 
few weeks no less than ten thousand men, mostly 
mechanics and deluded peasants, took the field in 

1 The rebellion began on Whitsun Monday, June 10th. 


52 The Anglican Reform. 


defence of the old Forms. They marched to Exeter, 
and from the outskirts of the city sent their de- 
mands into the King’s camp, couched in insolent 
language, insisting on the restitution of their Service- 
' books, a recognition of Transubstantiation, and, 
strangely enough, the re-enactment of the Bloody 
Statute of the Six Articles. The Exonians deter- 
mined on resistance, and the straits to which they 
were subjected, through a prolonged siege, have 
rarely been equalled in the annals of history. We 
may form some conception of the miseries they 
endured, when we read that one of the citizens pro- 
claimed in the market-place, that sooner than sur- 
render he would fight with one arm and feed upon 
the other! At last, when the Royal troops were 
sufficiently strong to advance against the rebels (and 
it was not till three merchant princes had come 
forward to reinforce the leader with large supplies of 
money, and a regiment of Italian archers+ had been 
enlisted in the service), their fate was sealed. They 
suffered three successive defeats, and the rebellion 
was crushed. 

"The revenge was severe. Arundel, Winslade, 


1 Commandéd by Baptista Spinola. They joined Lord Russell’s 
forces and aided very materially in compelling the enemy to raise 
the siege. The city was relieved on the 6th of August.—Cf. 
Heyim’s Ed. VI. p. 159. FrRoupe’s Hist. of. Eng. iv. 410, sm. ed, 


The Anglhcan Reform. 53 


Berry, and Coffin, the ringleaders, were publicly iiss nats 
executed at Tyburn: a multitude of others were punish- 
unceremoniously hanged, among them the Mayor eae 
of Bodmin, and a number of priests; and in Exeter, 

Welsh, the Vicar of St. Thomas’s, was suspended from 

his own Church tower, where he hung in chains till 

“his Popish apparel” rotted away, and the carrion 

crows picked his bones. 

That was the most serious of the Rebellions. 

We notice more briefly the rising in Norfolk, June The rising 
20, at Attleborough, for this, at least at the outset, Basten 
was less than the other a protest against the Prayer- ie 
book. At first the enclosure of the commons was 
their cry of complaint, but as their numbers swelled 
new grievances were sought for, and we hear them 
expressing themselves in such terms as these: “The 
miseries of this world might be borne; but when the 
loss of our souls is the question, the ruin from that 
quarter must be prevented at the utmost hazard... 
the holy ceremonies of antiquity are abolished, and 
a new face and form of religion forced upon us.” 

Again the Royal troops were unequal to the task 
of restoring order. Kett,! the rebel chief, established 


1 Robert Kett, who had been a tanner, was possessed of con- 
siderable landed property at Wymondham, and, desiring to add 
to it, enclosed some of the public commons. His fences were de- 
molished by a number of insurgents, whom he was induced to join. 


ER eR: a a Pa 
brains 8 
eg 


54 The Anglican Reform. 


a mock court under the “ Oak of Reformation,” and 
spread terror through the surrounding country. And 
here occurred an incident which nearly cost the 
great Reformer of Queen Elizabeth’s reign his life. 
Parker, in despair at the failure of the sword, 
resolved to try the effect of peaceable measures. He 
made his way into the rebel camp, and, from a 
branch of the famous oak, endeavoured to recall the 
people to counsels of moderation. But they were 
in no mood to listen, and were about to tear him 
to pieces for his advice, when the Chaplain of the 
Rebel Forces, realising the imminence of the peril, 
called upon the people suddenly to sing the “Te 
Deum,” and in the excitement and enthusiasm which 
it kindled the future Primate made good his escape.” 
Its sup- At length, vigorous measures were taken by the 
pression. 
government, and the mutiny was quelled.* Kett, on 
Norwich Castle, his brother on the steeple of Wymond- 
ham Church, and nine other rebels on as many 
branches of the “consecrated Oak,” paid the penalty 
of their crime. 


1 This was on Moushold-hill overlooking the city of Norwich, 

2 Cf. Hoor’s Life of Parker, 99. 

3 The Royal troops were commanded by the Marquess of Nor- 
thampton, who failed, and was superseded by the Earl of Warwick, 
who fought a bloody battle at Dussingdale, defeating the rebels 
and leaving 2000 of them dead on the field,—Aug. 27. 


+ I 
as 
5 


The Anglican Reform. 55 
And with their deaths resistance to the Reformed The un- 
mpeded 
read 0: 


Liturgy ceased ; and it was introduced throughout pee 
the length and breadth of the land to the increased Wouliee 
edification of the people and the greater glory of 


Almighty Gop. 


The causes 
which led 
to further 
change, 


CHAPTER IL 


Che Puritan Innovations, 


HE Revised Prayer-book, after the opposition 

in Devonshire and Norfolk had subsided, 
received very general recognition. Of course there 
were some who, while grateful for the reforms which 
had been effected, could ill suppress their conviction 
that the hands of the Reformers had been stayed 
too soon. These, however, in England at least, 
were not a numerous body; and if no influence 
from without had been brought to bear upon them, 
they would probably have quietly acquiesced with- 
out taking any action in the matter. But there 
were many restless spirits on the Continent who 
‘watched the progress of reform in this country with 
the keenest interest, and whose hopes seemed to 
hang upon the English Church. All, they felt, 
would be safe if only they could indoctrinate 
England with a truly Protestant spirit, a genuine 
aversion to anything and everything which received 


the approval of Rome. 
56 : 


The Puritan Innovations. 57 


R Foremost amongst these were Calvin, Melanchthon, he foreign 
John 4 Lasco, Bucer, and Peter Martyr. Reformers. 
7 : Unfortunately they found in Cranmer, the Primate 


| of the English Church, a too ready listener to their 
proposals. All of them entered into correspondence 
with him upon ecclesiastical affairs; some of them 
came over in person, and were welcomed as guests 
in his Palace, and received much sympathy and 
| encouragement at his hands. 

Calvin, piqued by the manner in which the Calvin. 
Archbishop had met his proposal! to take part in 
the first Revision, hesitated to risk a second rebuff 
by direct negotiations, but endeavoured first to 
ingratiate himself with the Protector, hoping through 
him ultimately to attain his object. He was con- 
siderate enough to express his general approval of 
set forms of prayer, but, with the self-sufficiency 
which asserts itself in all his letters, enters upon 
an elaborate criticism and censure of many of those 
which had so lately received the sanction of the 


English Convocation, the King, and the Parliament. 


1 HEYLIN says, “‘the Archbishop knew the man and refused 
the offer.” —Hist. Edw. VI. p. 134. Calvin’s readiness to come 
over is expressed in one of his letters thus—‘‘ Tf it shall be thought 
that I can be of any use, I should not hesitate to cross even the 
seas, if necessary, for the purpose.” It is asserted that this was 
written later, but it is generally known that his opinions were not 
approved by the leading Reformers. Cf. Carpw. Pref. to Litt. 
of Edw. VI. p. xxxii, 


58 The Puritan Innovations. 


After this he wrote to Edward vi pleading for more 
extensive revision. 

Cranmer had no personal liking for Calvin, and 
if he had been the only discontented complainant, 
probably little notice would have been taken of his 

Melan- grievance, but a far more dangerous Reformer 

chthon. entered into the field of controversy in the person 

of Melanchthon. The connection between him and 

the Primate began under most favourable circum- 

stances. It would hardly be possible to find any 

other two men with such strong natural affinities 

to each other. Now at this time Melanchthon was 

uae scheme possessed by an intense desire to draw up a Con- 

general  cordat which should commend itself to the Protes- 

concordat. tant world at large, and act as a powerful engine 

against the Papacy. So long as this was attacked 

by the Churches singly he felt that it would alwayy 

prove formidable, perhaps quite invincible, but if it 

could once be attacked by a combination of forces 
its downfall was secured. 

The possibility of the scheme had been suggested 

to him by the cordial reception of the Confession? 

which he had compiled throughout the Lutheran 


1 This document was presented to the Emperor Charles v. at 
Augsburg, June 25, 1530 a.p. It is divided into two parts, one 
referring to matters of faith, the other to ecclesiastical discipline 
touching certain matters of dispute, It is distinctly Lutheran, 


The Puritan Innovations. 59 


communities. It is characteristic, however, of 
Melanchthon’s modesty, and strangely in contrast 
with the self-confidence of his brother Reformer, that 
he shrank back from all claim to take part even in 
drawing up the terms of agreement, and more than 
hinted at the imperfections of the document he had 
framed. 
The idea commended itself to Cranmer’s judg- Melan- 


, Bee ont: ANS chthon re- 
ment, and he lost no time in inviting its originator fuses to 


to settle in this country, but the invitation was not Thales 
accepted. Again and again the Archbishop renewed 
his efforts, holding out every possible inducement, but 
Melanchthon persistently refused to leave his native 
land. The urgency of the invitations we may gather 
from the astonishment expressed in one of his 
letters,! in which he writes that “the English pressed 
him so hard that they took away his breath.” 

To any one who had interested himself in the 
work of Reform the union of all the Reformed 
Churches in such a coalition must in itself have 


and received the signatures of all the princes who professed 
Lutheran opinions, viz. :—John, the Elector of Saxony; George, 
Markgrave of Brandenburg; Ernest, Duke of Liinenburg; Philip, 
Landgrave of Hesse ; John Frederick, Electoral Prince of Saxony ; 
Francis, Duke of Liinenburg; Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt, to- 
gether with the Senates of Nuremberg and Reutlingen. Cf. 
HaRDWICE’S Hist. of the Artt. c. ii. p. 17. 
1 Cf, LaAvRENCE’s Bamp. Lect., notes to p. 87. 


The hope- 
lessness of 
the pro- 
posed 
scheme, 


60 The Puritan Innovations. 


appeared a grand conception; but past experience: 


of such combinations ought to have suggested 
difficulty and danger. If the alliance was to be 
more than nominal it would entail many sacrifices 
before satisfactory terms could be mutually agreed 
upon. Of these it was inevitable that by far the 
larger share would be called for from England. 
Unhappily Cranmer had already begun to drift away 
from the principles which he so boldly advocated at 


the Windsor Revision! ; and the utter inconsistency 


of making the required concessions failed to deter 
him. ‘There was certainly one most desirable object 
to be obtained by the project, and possibly this 
weighed largely with him. It would give back to 
the Lutheran and Calvinistic Churches the Episcopal 
government which they had lost.2, But he never 
calculated how much was to be set over-against this 


1 When the First Prayer-book of Edward vi. was drawn up. 
Cf. p. 12. 

2 The Reformation in Germany was not supported by any 
Bishop. None but priests joined Luther, and he was obliged, by 
the force of circumstances, either to abandon his design, or to 
admit the novel ordination of priests by the laying on of hands of 
the priests alone. He chose the latter course. The Augsburg 
Confession shows that a true sacramental system was retained 
with true priests to administer it for a time, but without the 
means of transmitting the power. Calvin's Reformation began 
on lower grounds still. The Helvetic Confession maintained-that 
Christ is the sole priest, except so far as laymen may be regarded 
as priests. He instituted anew order. Cf. Carter on the Doctr. 
of the Priesthood, ¢. iv. p. 24. 


; 


: es , 
oa ee Cee er 


The Puritan Innovations. 61 


one advantage in the surrender of other Catholic 
privileges. The Swiss Protestants,’ for instance, 
were impatient of everything, either in doctrine or 
L ritual, for which express direction was wanting in 
__ Holy Scripture. To conciliate them the authority 
of antiquity, the witness of tradition, the decrees of 
general Councils—all must be disregarded—and, in 
a word, the guiding principles of the First Revision 
completely reversed. 

Cranmer, unless he wilfully closed his eyes, must Infuences 
have seen all this at the outset; but he was egged rab 
q on by the Privy Council and the King himself. oe 

The fiery Scotch Reformer, John Knox, already 
enrolled among the Royal Chaplains,” was actually 
proposed for a vacant Bishopric, the King express- 
ing a hope that if raised to the Episcopal Bench he 
might prove “a whetstone to quicken and sharpen 
the Bishop of Canterbury, whereof he had need.” 
But though the Utopian scheme of Melanchthon was 
soon relinquished as hopeless, the impulse in the 


1 Ranke, the historian, in contrasting Luther and Zuingli, shows 
how, while the former desired to retain everything that was not 
at variance with the express teaching of Scripture, the latter 
determined to abolish everything which could not be supported 
by Scripture totidem verbis.—Reform. in Germ. iii. 86, 89 (Eng. 
trans.). 

2 In December 1551 a.D. He was afterwards proposed for tho 
See of Rochester, but his scruples, especially about kneeling at 
the Holy Communion, prevented him from accepting it. 


The second 


Diet of 
Spires. 


. 7 ce 


62 The Puritan Innovations. 


direction of Protestantism which Cranmer had re- 
ceived lost little of its force. Indeed it gathered 
fresh energy from a new and unexpected cause. 
This produced ultimately such grave and unhappy 
results that we cannot pass on till we have traced its 
origin with care and attention. 

On March 15, 1529 a.D., a diet of the German 
Empire was ordered by Charles v. to take into 
consideration the state of religion in his dominions. 
A resolution was passed ratifying a previous con- 
demnation of Luther, and pledging the members 
of the Conference to use their endeavours to stem 
the tide of innovation which was threatening to 
inundate the land. 

The Elector of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, 
the Prince of Anhalt, the Dukes of Liinenburg, 
together with the Commissioners from fourteen 
Imperial cities,! made a manly defence for the rights of 
conscience, and solemnly protested against what they 
held to be an unjust decree, gaining from this cir- 
cumstance the distinction of being the progenitors 
of all who have since borne the title of “ Protestant.” 


The Diet of Spires enforced the decree issued against Luther 
at Worms in 1524 s.p. The fourteen cities were Strasburg, Ulm, 
Nuremberg, Constance, Reutlingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, 
Lindau, Kempten, Heilbronn, Isny, Weissenburg, Nordlingen, 
and St. Gall.—RoBErtson’s Hist. of Charles V. lib. v. p. 34. 


y 


“4 


The Puritan Innovations. 63 


The league of Smalcald,' which followed not long The league 


after, bound the Protestant States together for cald 
mutual defence against all aggression upon their 
religious rights. The Emperor determined to leave 
no stone unturned to defeat their object, but it was 
not till some time had elapsed that he was able to 
take any decisive step. In 1548 AD., by the aid of 
several divines, he drew up a system of Theology? 
for general adoption, but although it was written 
with most carefully studied dissimulation, and every 
artifice which language could provide was employed 
to conceal its real effect, it was soon discovered to be 
conformable in all but a few unimportant articles to 
the old Roman Religion. The document purported to 
be merely intended as a provisional arrangement, of 
force only till a general Council could be summoned, 
and it was designated accordingly “The Interim.” 


The Emperor was determined to bind the The 


States to his will, and to coerce all who refused 


compliance. One prince after another suffered Henpeter. 


imprisonment, taking courage from the noble 


1 Tt was formed March 29, 1531 a.p. The Protestants bound 
themselves by it to aid each other in upholding the Augsburg 
Confession for six years. 

2 Tt was compiled mainly by John Agricola of Brandenburg. 
The only real concessions to the Protestants were the withdrawal 
of the restrictions touching the marriage of the Clergy in certain 
cases, and the permission to administer the Cup to the laity. 


The 
oppressed 
Foreigners 
take refuge 
in England, 


64 The Puritan Innovations. 

example of the Elector of Saxony, whom threats 
and promises. alike failed to shake. “I cannot 
now,’ he said, “in my old age abandon the 
principles for which I formerly contended; nor, in 
order to procure freedom during a few declining 
years, will I betray that good cause on account of 
which I have suffered so much, and am still willing 
to suffer. Better for me to enjoy in this solitude 
the esteem of virtuous men, together with the 
approbation of my own conscience, than to return 
unto the world, with the imputation and guilt of 
apostasy, and to disgrace and embitter the remainder 
of my days.” The severity ‘of his confinement was 
increased, and everything done to compel sub- 
mission; but throughout Germany and in the 
Netherlands, there was an obstinate determination 
not to be drawn back again into the toils from 
which they had extricated themselves, when 
Luther threw the Papal Bull into the flames at 
Wittenberg. 

But in the midst of all this persecution it was 
not surprising that they looked abroad for a free 
country where they might hold and proclaim their 
opinions without molestation; and it was no less 
surprising that they turned instinctively to England 
to find what they desired. These were the cir- 


Mo oO oe ee nh af, 
sue ue Sf ee 
Rees" atop Seat Siete ieee 
anes at 
acr 


The Puritan Innovations. 65 


cumstances which brought the bulk of the Foreign 
Protestants into this country. We have dwelt upon 
the history at length, at the risk of being tedious, 
because it was of such momentous consequence to 
the Church that it can hardly be too carefully con- 
sidered. 

The leading Foreigners who took refuge with 
us were John 4 Lasco, Peter Martyr, and Martin 
Bucer. Y 

As they affected for a time the whole char- 
acter of Liturgical worship in England, we shall 
adopt the plan which we followed with the First 
Revisionists, and endeavour to draw out the lead- 
ing features of their lives and work for the 
better understanding of the influence which they 
exercised. 

In May 1550 «.D., John & Lasco came to settle in John 4 
London. Though by birth a Pole, of noble blood, 
he had been living in the capital of Friesland? for 
some years, and taking a prominent part in all the 
Ecclesiastical controversies, which agitated the 
Netherlands, as well as the rest of the Continent. 
The Protestant cause made great progress in the 
province, and the Emperor, perhaps confounding its 
advocates to some extent with the turbulent 

1 He settled at Emden in 1537 a.p. 
E 


His great 
influence. 


The king’s 
concessions 
to 


66 The Puritan Innovations. 


Anabaptists, took the extreme measure of invoking 
the aid of the Spanish Inquisition to suppress 
them. 

The fear of this, combined with the publication of 
“the Interim,”? drove 4 Lasco to find a refuge in 
England. The wide-spread influence which he 
exercised over the Foreign Churches, which had 
formed or were forming congregations in London, 
is very remarkable, and stamps him as a man of 
no inconsiderable power. He succeeded without 
difficulty in gaining the ear of the Lords of the 
Council, Cecil and Cheke, and through them of the 
Protector Somerset. He held out to him the advan- 
tages to trade, especially in the branch of weaving, 
which was their speciality, likely to accrue to our 
country if his followers were permitted to dwell 
unmolested. And he gained even more than he 
asked. The King was so fascinated by his conver- 
sation, and touched by his story, that he actually 
granted part of the dissolved monastery of the 
Augustinian Friars as a chapel for his congrega- 
tion, together with the unprecedented privilege of 
absolute security from interference, civil and ecclesi- 
astical, in their forms of worship and discipline, 


1 Cf. Harpwicr’s Ref, c. ii. p. 161. 
2 In the Spring of 1550 a.v. 


The Puritan Innovations. 67 

This remarkable concession,! fraught with so much 
future trouble to the Church, was signed and sealed 
on July 24,1550 a. It offered all that the restless 
spirits of the time could desire in the free exercise 
of religious worship, after other forms than those 
established by the law of the land. The home of 
a Lasco became a rendezvous for persecuted foreigners 
of whatever denomination or doctrinal opinion, and 
he reigned like a second Pontiff over a multitude of 
communities, Dutch, German, Italian, Florentine, 
Belgian and French. In doctrine, on the crucial His 
question of the day, the nature of the Sacraments, eae 
he advocated strongly Zuinglian principles, and 
condemned as idolatrous the practice of kneeling 
to receive the consecrated elements. His aversion 
to Rites and Ceremonies manifested itself in his 
eagerness to shake off the fetters of English usage ; 
while in the Vestiarian controversy, which was 
creating such trouble and bitterness at this time, 
Hooper expressed his satisfaction that though many 
men of influence and position from whom he expected 
support held entirely aloof, “John 4 Lasco stood by 
his side.” 

1 The letters patent gave them leave «kuos libere et quiete frui 
gaudere uti et exercere ritus et cceremonias suas proprias et 


disciplinam ecclesiasticam propriam et peculiarem.”— WILKINS, 
iv. 65. Harpwicr’s Ref., c. iv. p. 219. 


Peter 
Martyr. 


68 The Puritan Innovations. 


His piety was most marked, and his learning 
so profound, that Erasmus pronounced him to be 
‘a, man of such parts that he wished for no greater 
happiness than his single friendship,”! and as an 
unmistakable mark of his esteem, he bequeathed 
to him in his will the then-priceless treasure of his 
Library. 

Now while 4 Lasco was exercising his great 
influence in favour of Calvinistic doctrine and 
unrestrained liberty of private judgment in the 
metropolis, the Universities of Oxford and Cam- 
bridge were being brought under the training of 
foreign minds in many respects of no very different 
type. Peter Martyr was teaching at Oxford; 
Martin Bucer at Cambridge. Martyr, a man of 
high birth, spent his early years in a Florentine 
monastery, but was at last compelled, like so many 
of his contemporaries, to become an exile for con- 
science sake, Like 4 Lasco he found a sanctuary in 
England.? Shortly after his arrival, mainly through 
the Primate’s influence he superseded Dr. Richard 
Smith in the Chair of Divinity at Oxford. He 
became at once unpopular with the University 


1 “ Johannis 4 Lasco tale sum expertus ingenium ut vel hoc uno 
amico mihi videar sat beatus.”—Erasmi Hpist. 878. STRYPE’S 
Cranmer, ii. 277. 

2 He came to England in 1549 a.n, 


The Puritan Innovations. 69 


authorities ; his first offence was taking his wife to 
live with him in his Canonical lodgings at Christ 
Church, she being the first woman who had ven- 
tured to invade by her presence “the sanctity of 
College life.” Dying shortly after, she was buried 
by the shrine of St. Frideswide in Christ Church 
Cathedral, but on the accession of Queen Mary the 
Celibates had their revenge, for her body was 
thrown out in scorn and buried in a dunghill with- 
out the precincts of the College.+ 

In the earliest lectures that he delivered, he took 
such a low view of the Sacraments as to assert that 
they were mere “ figures of absent things,” and the 
general tone of his Theology roused a spirit of 
strong opposition, so strong that on one occasion 
when the Schools were thronged by town as well as 
gown, he owed his preservation from personal 
violence to the timely interposition of the Vice- 
Chancellor and his attendants.” 

Again, on the Vestiarian controversy he took up 
a position directly opposed to all the traditional 

1 On the accession of Elizabeth, her bones were restored to the 
Cathedral, and, to avoid the possibility of future desecration, were 
mingled with those of the patron Saint in the same grave. 

2 He selected for his subject 1 Corinthians xi. Cf. Soames’s 
Fidw. VI. 504. Strypre (Cranm. ii. 157) gives an interesting 


account of the disputations upon Transubstantiation which were 
subsequently held, 


Martin 
Bucer. 


70 The Puritan Innovations. 


usage of the Catholic Church, and was heard to 
boast that although a Canon of the Cathedral “he had 
never worn a surplice at Oxford, even when present 
in the Choir,” and his favourite designation for the 
Eucharistic vestments was “ relics of the Amorites.”* 

And these are things which we must not forget 
when we come to consider the changes which the 
Second Edwardian Prayer-book effected both in 
doctrine and ceremonial. 

We pass to the third of the distinguished 
Foreigners. His original name was Kuhhorn, but 
according to a pedantic fashion of the day? he 
changed it to Bucer, Bods xépas, or in English 
“Cowhorn.” Much of his early life he spent at 
Heidelberg as a Dominican Friar,? but was at length 
tempted to abandon the cloister, and entered the 
married state: and in doing so he not only violated’ 
his own sacred promise, but induced another to do 
the same, for he selected a nun for his partner; and 
when in the plague which devastated the country 
in 1541 A.D., she and five of her thirteen sons were 


1 This designation is first attributed to Jewel. Cf. Life, by Lr 
Bas, p. 74. 

2 Cf. Melanchthon, Erasmus, etc. 

3 He was born at Alsace in 1491 a.D., and at seven years of age 
took the habit of St. Dominic. He came to England at the urgent 
request of Cranmer in April 1549 a.p., and began his Lectures on 
the New Testament after the Long Vacation. 


The Puritan Innovations. vB: 


carried off, the enemies who professed the old Faith 
beasted that judgment had overtaken her at last for 
her broken vows. 

On coming to England at the same time as 
Martyr, Bucer was placed in the corresponding 
Chair of Divinity in the sister University, where he 
gave a fresh direction to the studies of the place. 
While his brother Professor at Oxford had been 
trained in the School of Calvin, he had sat at the 
feet of Luther. He did not, it is true, accept his His 
master’s teaching on the subject of subjects; he Eels 
nevertheless held Sacramental views many degrees 
removed from the bareness of Calvin’s pupil. 

The vicious principle that the abuse of a thing is 
in itself a sufficient argument for its disuse had too 
much hold upon him, and it led him to oppose 
with fatal effect the Catholic practice of commend- 
ing in prayer the faithful dead to the mercy of 
Gop. He did not hesitate to profess his cordial 
acceptance of the Revised Prayer-book, but inas- 
much as in twenty-eight chapters of criticism of 
its contents, he finds abundant material for censure, 


1 He first met Luther at the Diet of Worms, and subsequently 
was engaged much with him in discussing Theological questions, 
but never accepted the doctrine of Consubstantiation. He held, 
however, ‘‘quod corpus Christi vere et substantialiter a nobis 
accipiatur cum sacramento utimur.”—Cf. HarDwIck’s Ref, iii. 
166, n. 


72 The Puritan Innovations. 


it is difficult to acquit him of the charge of dis- 
simulation, and certainly his views upon the utility 
of ceremonies, and “the circumstance” of religious 
worship, are utterly inconsistent with an unreserved 
approval of the principles of the First Revision. i 
His dislike For instance, he confessed that the sign of the Cross 
of cere- : : ° . 
monies, in Holy Baptism, the symbolical act of investing 
with the Chrisom,! and “the sanctification of water 
to the mystical washing away of sin,” were especially | 
distasteful to him. Even the innocent practice of bell- a 
ringing, except immediately before service, he de- 
nounced for reasons quite unintelligible. | 
The separation of the Clergy from the Laity 
during Divine Service, he designated an “anti- 
christian practice.” The manual acts accompanying 
the words of Consecration in the Holy Eucharist he 
condemned as useless, and not only did he show an 
aversion to the Eucharistic vestments, but went so 
far as to object to wearing the Academic dress, 
though he shielded what we believe was a genuine 
detestation under the disguise of a quaint witticism, 
“that he could hardly be expected to wear a square 


cap, seeing that his head was round.” 

1 Cf. p. 86. 

2 There is much dispute as to the originator of this witticism, 
Fox (vi. 641), speaking of Hooper at Consecration, says, “‘ Upon 
his head he had a geometrical, that is, a four-squared cap, albeit 
that his head was round.”—Cf. Hryiin’s Hdw. VJ, p. 194. 


Pale oe 
, 


The Puritan Innovations. 73 


But while we find so much with which we can His 


feel little sympathy, we must not omit to bear testi- = 
mony to his personal attractiveness and an ami- 
ability and sweetness of disposition towards those 
who differed from him, which often proved irresist- 
ible in winning them to his side. 

His residence at Cambridge was of short duration, 
but sufficiently long to endear him to men of every 
class, and shade of opinion, and he was followed to 
his grave by the whole body of the University. 

The learned ecclesiastic Redmayn, Master of 
Trinity, Cambridge, who delivered a panegyric upon 
his merits, confessed that his own high sacramental 
views might not improbably have undergone material 
modification had not the influence of the Professor’s 
teaching been so prematurely closed. His labours 
in the Protestant cause were not forgotten when 
Queen Mary reigned, for his body was exhumed, and 
burnt in the market-place; but the dishonour was 
wiped out at a later date, when a special act of 
reparation was performed at St. Mary’s, and the 
Church presented a spectacle unique in its history, 
the walls being literally covered with laudatory 
verses and tributes to his worth. 

It was to the spell of these three men that 
Cranmer yielded himself up. Whether he actually 


ersonal 
oodness, 


74 The Puritan Innovations. 


utilised their direct aid and counsel, during the pro- 
gress of the Second Revision, or not, is really a 
matter of indifference, or at least of secondary im- 
Changes portance. When we contrast him with what he 
opinions of Was when he sat in the Chair in the Windsor 
ae Assembly, no one can deny that a vast change had 
passed over him; and when we go on to consider 
how the change had taken place in the very direc- 
tion of the teaching of certain influential men, with 
whom he had been living in close intimacy or corre- 
spondence, there is only one consistent conclusion to 
be drawn. ‘ 
In the alterations which mark the Revision under 
present consideration we see again and again such 
a significant coincidence between the proscription of 
forms or doctrine, and the peculiar tenets of one 
or other of these Foreign Reformers, that it is simple 
blindness to refuse to acknowledge the potency of 
this alien influence. 
Now, while Cranmer and the King had been 
drawn into such close bonds of sympathy with the 
Exiles, and strongly impelled, as we have seen, to 
conciliate them by further revision of our Service- 
books in view of a great Protestant Alliance, matters 
were brought to a crisis by the outbreak of the 
Vestiarian controversy. 


The Puritan Innovations. 75 


The prominent figure throughout was John The Ves- 
tiarian 
Hooper. dispute. 
On the passing of the “Bloody Statute”? he fled 
to Ziirich, and there became thoroughly impregnated 
with Swiss theology, and enamoured of the bareness 
of Zuingli’s forms of service. 
After his return home upon the accession of — 
‘ cooper. 
Edward vi., he was appointed to preach before the 
King and his Most Honourable Privy Council, and 
availed himself of the opportunity of advocating in 
several sermons a number of sweeping changes and 
most startling innovations. His first efforts were 
directed to the destruction of stone altars” and the 
substitution of wooden tables, which he deemed 
imperative, for the overthrow of the Sacrificial 
doctrine of the Holy Eucharist; and in this crusade 
Ridley went heartily with him? As a necessary 
sequel it was followed up by an attack upon the 
Eucharistic Vestments, which he said were only 
1 The Act of Six Articles was passed in 1539 a.p. Hooper was 
chiefly influenced at Ziirich by Bullinger. 
2 The subject of his sermons preached before the King was “‘an 
oversight and deliberation upon the holy prophet Jonas.” In the 
fourth of the course he advocated the destruction of the altars. 
He wrote a treatise to show why ‘‘the Lord’s Board should 
rather be after the form of a table than of an altar,” cf. Works, 
p. 321. In his Injunctions he exhorted ‘‘the curates, church- 


wardens, and questmen to erect and set up the Lord’s Board after 
the form of an honest table.” Carpw. Docum. Ann. i. 82. 


76 The Puritan Innovations. 


“marks of Judaism” calculated to bring us back again 
to the Aaronic Priesthood. From this he went on to 
condemn the Academical habits, and the Convoca- 
tion Robes of the Prelates especially as being of the ; 
colour which was held to identify the Papacy with the 
Babylonian harlot. But here the Bishop of London 
wisely quitted his side) He even contended so 
strongly for the medizval dress, that, sooner than 
yield, he advised the imprisonment of his old 
colleague for his obstinate refusal to wear them. 
Hooper was committed to the Fleet.) - 

It was one of those unguarded moves, which so 
often lead to consequences the very opposite to what 
is desired. ; 

Persecution endured for conscience sake not un- 
frequently terminates in favour of the persecuted. 
When the Prison door closed upon Hooper, the 
battle was won for his cause. 

And, with this agitation, the combination of 
forces requisite to re-open the reform of Church 


1 He was first committed to the Archbishop’s custody, but being 
immoveable in his determination not to wear the Episcopal habit, he 
was condemned to imprisonment January 27, 1551 a.D.: cf. STRYPE, 
ii. 217. He complied subsequently on condition that he should 
be ‘‘ attired in the vestments prescribed when he was consecrated 
and when he preached before the King or in his cathedral or in 
any public place, but be dispensed with on other occasions,” 
— COLLIER, y. 429, 


The Puritan Innovations. Va 


worship was well-nigh complete. It only wanted No sanction 
from Con- 


the sanction of Convocation to insure recom- vocation 

mencement and unimpeded progress afterwards. oe 

But, to the honour of the Church, that was never 

given. , 
At the urgent solicitation of Calvin, the two 

Houses seem to have taken into consideration the 

desirableness of proceeding with the work of 

revision, but though the records of their delibera- 

tions have perished, it would appear from contem- 

porary evidence that they did not encourage, cer- 

tainly not formally authorise, the proposed under- 

taking. Some of the Upper House, it is true, having 

been like the Primate brought under Continental 

influence, did suggest to the Lower House that they 

should consult upon certain controverted passages 

in the Book of Common Prayer ; but when the latter 

were called upon by their spiritual superiors to give 

in the result of their deliberations, they found an 

excuse in the plea that insufficient time had been 

allowed,’ but made no signs of proceeding with the 

business, which, as far as they were concerned, was 


1 When the Upper House debated upon certain disputed points 
they made known their views to the Prolocutor, but the Lower 
House made answer ‘‘ that they had not sufficiently considered of 
the points proposed, but that they would give their lordships 
some account thereof in the following session ;” but there is no 
trace of their fulfilling the promise. HEYLI, i. 228. 


Onder 
taken on 
the sole 
authority 
of Parlia- 
ment. 


The broad 
distinction 


Puritan. 


78 The Puritan Innovations. 
altogether dropped. It is quite clear that they were 
averse to the proposal, and that the King was fully 
aware of it. Otherwise it would be impossible to 
account for his declaration, that he was determined 
to carry it through, despite all opposition, and if the 
changes he desired were not secured by the ordinary 
process, he would, as head of the Church, exercise 
his prerogative and enforce revision. 

Eventually an Act of Parliament was passed 
directing that the former Liturgy “should be faith- 
fully and godly perused, explained, and made fully 
perfect.” 

This was the authority upon which the Revision 
was undertaken. 

Before we look at the changes which were made, 
let us prepare ourselves by a rapid glance at the dis- 
tinctive features of Catholic and Puritan worship. 

The Catholic clings to his Church as an historic 
Church. In every age of its existence its present is 
linked with its past. Its faith is a symbol of unity, 
because it is part of the great heritage of Catholic 
tradition: not an ever-changing system of religion 
and worship, but one inherited through a long line 


1 Tt was enjoined that it should be done by the King with the 
assent of the Lords and Commons, 5 and 6 Epw. Vi. ¢, i, 
FULLER’s Ch. Hist. 312. 


The Puritan Innovations. 79 


of ancestry, to be transmitted unimpaired to the 
latest posterity. 

The Church of the Puritan is essentially unhis- 
toric, with no reverence for ancient forms because of 
their antiquity, but ready at any time to sacrifice 
whatever in her judgment has become tainted with 
error ; to supersede by modern innovations the most 
time-honoured usage. 

And now, in the light of this broad distinction, 
let us look at the changes themselves, 


They were so numerous that without attempting The 


to exhaust the list, we shall be satisfied to set forth 


those which from their significance seem most f° 


worthy of our attention. 


The title of the book was changed. In the first The Title- 
Prayer-book of Edward vI. it was “The book of a 


common prayer and administration of the Sacra- 
ments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, 
after the use of the Church of England.” 

In the second Prayer-book “of the Church” was 
omitted, and an indirect blow given to the claim of the 
Anglican branch to belong to the Catholic Church. 

The spirit of the next change is worthy of all 
praise. Before the revision only such as “served 
the congregation” were expected to recite daily 
Matins and Evensong. Henceforward an obligation 


80 The Puritan Innovations. 


The obliga- was laid upon all priests and deacons, “except they 


tion to 
recite the 
Daily 


Changes in 
the Calen- 
dar. 


be letted by preaching, studying of divinity, or 
by some other urgent cause;” and also upon all 
Curates to say the same in their Parish Churches, 
unless they were absent from home or otherwise 
reasonably hindered. 

These obligations, with a slight modification, 
remain in force at the present day. We cannot 
but think some evil has arisen from the causes of 
exemption not having been duly recognised. In 
many villages where the clergyman hesitates because 
he is single-handed, the Daily Service would be 
offered, if it were thoroughly understood by priest 
and people that its intermission from time to time 
from several causes, provided for in the rubric, 
would convey no impression of neglect of duty. 

In the Calendar the names of three Saints were 
admitted, viz., SS. George, Laurence, and Clement; 
upon what grounds the two former were so 
honoured it is difficult to divine, considering the 
strong objections felt by the Revisionists to the 
principle of commemorating any other than those 
whose place in Scripture history entitled them to 
distinction. 

At the same time Mary Magdalene was allowed 
to drop out, probably from a doubt in their minds 


a i as 
¢ ae : 


The Puritan Innovations. 81 


that she was the woman who was “a sinner,” to 
whom the portion of Scripture, St. Luke vii. 36-50, 
read for the Gospel referred. There are few tradi- 
tions more improbable and baseless than that which 
has resulted in the popular belief. 

And though the Revisionists might have acted 
more wisely by substituting an appropriate passage, 
and thus retaining her place in the services of the 
Church, almost anything is better than the per- 
petuation of an error, which stained the memory 
of one of the most beautiful saints of Gospel 
story. 

Then we notice the introduction of a rubric To 
directing that the Prayers shall be said, “in such 
place of the Church, chapel, or chancel, and the 
Minister shall so turn him as the people may best 
hear.” This was intended as a relaxation of the rule 
or custom of the First Prayer-book, which placed the 
Reader in the Quire, where he stood or knelt facing 
eastwards,! turning, that is, in the same direction as 
the congregation—a position which seemed fit and 
appropriate to one who was acting for the time being 
as their head and representative. The modification 
was a concession to Bucer and Calvin, whose 
vehement denunciations of the prevailing practice 

1Cf. BLunt’s Annot. Pr. Book, p. 19. 
F 


82 The Puritan Innovations. 


as “ Antichristian” and as an “insufferable abuse” 
are still extant. ‘ 
Addition, | Another change was the prefixing of the Sentences, 
Exhortation, Confession, and Absolution to the 
Matins, which had begun hitherto with the Lorp’s 
Prayer, This was necessary when the frequency of 
divine service had ceased to solemnise the minds of 
the congregation, and for this purpose a better pre- 
paration could hardly have been devised. It is when 
the conscience is relieved from the burden of its sins, 
that man is in the fittest mood to praise and give 
thanks to Gop. The main object however of the 
Revisionists in this was to discourage private confes- 
sion and absolution by providing through the public 
ministration of daily service the benefits which had 
been sought hitherto from the priest singly and alone. 
At the same time the “ Alleluia,” which had been 
sung from Easter to Trinity before the “Venite,” 
and which had become most closely associated in 
the minds of the people with that joyful season, 
was omitted. 
Alternative ‘I'he use of the “Te Deum” and the “ Benedicite ” 
Canticles. tad varied largely in the Church services. In the 
Sarum Breviary the latter was to be substituted for 
the former both in Advent and from Septuagesima 


1 The change was extended to Evensong in 1662 4.p. 


we tet “a pce 
ae 
~ 
: 


The Puritan Innovations. 83 


Sunday to Easter; in the First Prayer-book in 
Lent only. Henceforward it was made a simple 
alternative for it, and in a similar manner 
was the “Jubilate” for the ‘“Benedictus,” the 
“Cantate” for the “Magnificat,” and the “Deus 
misereatur” for the “‘Nune dimittis.” In the 
first instance the intention was probably to allow 
of greater freedom in using the “ Benedicite,” 
which before had been confined to a definite season. 
On the score of ancient usage the claims of the two 
are equal: for if the “Te Deum” be regarded as 
a development of the hymn which the early Christ- 
ians in Pliny’s time sang “to Christ as Gop,’ 
we have on the other hand the testimony of St. 
Chrysostom to the fact that the “Benedicite” had 
been sung from the beginning “everywhere through- 
out the world.” In point of propriety the one 
is the hymn of the Church, the other the song 
of the universe ; while then the former is more 
adapted for general use, the latter may be fitly 
substituted on numerous occasions, when the bless- 
ings of creation are brought prominently forward, 
and for this reason its relegation to Lent was a 
patent inconvenience. 

In the case of the “ Jubilate,” the obvious inten- 
tion was that it should only be substituted for the 


au 


84 The Puritan Innovations. 


“Benedictus” on the occasions when the latter 
occurred elsewhere in the service, though this has 
been completely frustrated, and the special hymn 
has for the most part superseded the general. For 
obvious reasons this supersession is much to be 
deprecated. What influences led the Revisionists to 
offer the “ Deus misereatur” for the “ Nunc dimittis” 
we have no means of determining, but in the case of 
the “ Cantate” for the “ Magnificat” their motive was 
unmistakable. It was a needless compliance with 
the unreasonable objections of the Puritans, who 
did not scruple to banish from its time-honoured? 
position one of the very noblest outpourings of 
inspired song, to gratify their aversion to everything 
which expressed the slightest reverence for the 
Mother of our Lorp. 

The Incarnation was the special idea embodied 
in the ancient Vespers, and it was very forcibly 
expressed in the thankful acknowledgment alike of 
the Blessed Virgin and of the aged Simeon. To 
attempt, therefore, to supersede their Canticles 
tended to break the continuity which the First 
Revisionists had been so careful to preserve. 


1 The use of the Magnificat in public worship can be traced back 
to the beginning of the sixth century, as it is found in Lauds in 
the Rule of Cesarius ; whereas the Cantate was never sung except 
in the proper order of the Psalms before 1552 a.p. 


The Puritan Innovations. 85 


In the First Prayer-book the Athanasian Creed 
was directed to be recited on the six great Festivals 
of Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Whit- 
sunday, and Trinity. At the Second Revision seven 
Saints’ Days were added, the selection being made, 
so as to provide for its being said, as nearly as 
possible, once a month. 

The limitation of the use of the Litany to the 
penitential days of the week was withdrawn, as also 
the permission to omit the Litany, “Gloria in 
éxcelsis,” Creed, Homily and Exhortation to Holy 
Communion, if there was to be a sermon, or for 
other causes which were considered important, 

The wish of the Revisionists to enforce the Litany 
on all Sundays is quite intelligible, when read in 
the light of their austere and gloomy views of 
Sabbath observance ; and though we may regret the 
course they adopted in regard to this, they deserve 
all praise for refusing to sanction the omission 
of the Creed and the “Gloria in excelsis.” It 
is true we cannot trace the recitation of a creed in 
the Liturgy without interruption from primitive 
times, but it is obviously most desirable that every 
safeguard against heresy should be taken in cele- 
brating the great Mysteries; neither is it wise to 
curtail that which helped to express our thanks- 


The Athan- 
asian Creed. 


Touching 


the Litany, 


Creed, etc. 


Divers rites 
and cere- 
monies in 
the baptis- 
mal office 
discon- 
tinued. 


86 The Puritan Innovations. 


giving, and make the service a “sacrifice of 
praise.” 

In the Baptismal office the following rites and 
ceremonies were abolished: viz., the trine immer- 
sion, the anointing with oil, the signing the breast 
with the mark of the Cross, the form of exorcism in 
which the priest commanded the unclean spirit to 
come out and no more exercise tyranny over the 
infants whom Christ was calling to be of the number 
of his flock, and the investiture of the newly-baptized 
with the Chrisom,! as the priest said “Take this 
white vesture for a token of the innocency, which 
by Gon’s grace in this holy sacrament of baptism is 
given unto thee; and for a sign whereby thou art 
admonished, so long as thou livest, to give thyself 
to innocency of living, that after this transitory life, 
thou mayest be partaker of the life everlasting.” 
At the same time the custom of the sponsors laying 
their hands upon the child preparatory to this 
ceremony was given up, as well as the dedication of 
the Chrisom by the mother when she presented 
herself in Church at her purification. 

Some of these ceremonies may have been fitly 
removed, some might be now recovered with 
advantage. What, for instance, could be more 


1 Cf. page 72, 


4 = 
Pe 


ewaneeeser i: 


The Puritan Innovations. 87 


appropriate than the triple affusion accompanying 
the utterance of the triple Name of the Triune 
Gop? 

And amongst ignorant people, who, as all ex- 
perience proves, are taught most easily by signs 
and pictures, is it possible to conceive of anything 
more instructive of the whole teaching of Holy 
Baptism, than the immediate investiture of the 
newly-baptized in a robe of spotless purity ? 

An important addition was made by the intro- 
duction of the five prayers: “O merciful Gop, 
grant that the old Adam,” etc, of the form of 
reception into “the congregation of Christ’s flock,” 
and of the declaration of the child’s regeneration, 
“Seeing now,” etc., together with the thanksgiving 
for the same, “ We yield Thee hearty thanks,” etc. 


In Confirmation the rubric! was withdrawn direct- The Gon- 
» firmation 


ing the Bishop to “cross them in the forehead,” gepvice, 


and the beautiful prayer “Defend, O Lorp, this 
thy child,” etc., substituted for another? referring to 
“the sign.” as well as the unction of the Holy Ghost. 


1 Then the Bishop shall cross them in the forehead and lay his 
hand upon their head, saying, ‘‘ N. I sign thee with the sign of the 
cross, and lay my hand upon thee: In the Name,” etc. 

2 «Sign them, O LorD, and mark them to be thine for ever, by 
the virtue of thy holy Cross and passion. Confirm and strength 
them with the inward unction of Thy Holy Ghost, mercifully unto 
everlasting life.” 


a ee 


88 The Puritan Innovations. 


The Matri: In Matrimony the sign of the Cross hitherto 
mene made when the priest blessed the man and the 
woman was omitted, and a reference to the 
apocryphal mission of the Angel Raphael to “ Thobie 
and Sara” gave place to that of a Scriptural fact, 
viz., the blessing of Gop upon Abraham and Sarah. 
Changesin In the Visitation, and the Communion of the 


pas Sick, the ancient rite of anointing with oil was no 


Visitation longer mentioned, The rubric providing that the 
form of absolution used in this service should be 
available for all private confessions was erased ; and 
the liberty of reserving the Blessed Sacrament from 
an open Communion celebrated on the same day, 
or from a Celebration in one sick-room for Com- 
munion in another, was withdrawn. 

No doubt abuses had sprung up in connexion 
with the practice of reservation, but now that there 
is little probability of their breaking out afresh, a 
return to primitive custom might be allowed, and 
with every prospect of affording relief to the clergy 
and benefit to the sick. Instances of wide-spread 
sickness and mortality arising from some special 
cause must be within the experience of most parish 
priests, where they have had no alternative but to 
transgress the existing law, or leave men to die 
without the Food of eternal life, 


The Puritan Innovations. 89 


In the Order for the Burial of the dead, the m the 
service was robbed of its most comforting element, pa 
when, as touching prayer for the departed, the 
mourners’ lips were sealed, and not even a pious 
aspiration was allowed to relieve a stricken and 
sorrowful heart. Two special forms for commending Prayers fot 
the soul into the hands of the merciful GoD were diac 
altogether expunged from the Office, and a prayer the Burial” 
that the sins which the departed had committed ee 
might not be imputed to him, was turned into a 
thanksgiving that he had been delivered out of the 
miseries of this sinful world ; and further a petition 
for our perfect consummation and bliss was couched 
in such ambiguous phrase that it is impossible to 
say whether it comprehends the dead as well as 
the living, or not. 

The intention of the framers of it, judging from 
their general course of action, most likely was to 
pray for the latter alone; but their language was 
providentially so ordered that pious men in every 
generation since have been able to use it with 
larger views and in a more Catholic spirit. 

And here I may be pardoned if I dwell awhile, 
because the action of the Foreign Reformers in this 
matter has not only left a most lamentable blot on 


the Book, but illustrates very clearly the principles 


90 The Puritan Innovations. 


by which they were guided. Their boast was 
that they cared little for antiquity, and had no 
reverence for the past; the guidance to which they 
trusted was that of private judgment which many | 
of them came at last to believe in as infallible. 

For fourteen or fifteen centuries, prayers had been : : 


offered for those who died in the LorD: there was 
not a Liturgy! from the very beginning, either in 
the East or the West, which did not contain such | 
petitions, and yet in the face of this usage, the un- | 
broken usage of the Church universal, because the 
Catholic belief in the intermediate state had been r 
confounded with the errors of Purgatory, they ; 
paraded their pernicious rule, “the abuse is a 
sufficient reason for the disuse,” and disallowed in 
their cold and loveless creed even thanksgiving for 
the good example of a departed saint. 

aye Holy From the earliest times a celebration of the Holy 

mollonger Eucharist had been associated with the burial of the 
dead, and the Revisionists of 1549 A.D. made full 
provision for a continuance of the custom. When 
their successors in 1552 A.D. omitted the Introit, / 
Collect, Epistle and Gospel appointed for the Service, 
thereby discountenancing a Celebration, they left 
a void in our Prayer-book for which nothing but 


1 Cf. Luckoox’s After Death, pp. 109-115. 


The Puritan Innovations. 9I 


its full restoration can ever supply adequate con- 
solation. 

In this Revision Psalms 116, 136, and 146, which The Psalms 
were said in the First Prayer-book either before or ea 
after the burial of the corpse, were dropt out. 

One object observable throughout appears to 
have been a desire to curtail the service as far as 
possible ; a desire which developed in their suc- 
cessors to such an extent that in the next century 
Bishop Cosin? testifies that “they would have no 
minister to bury their dead, but the corpse to be 
brought to the grave and there put in by the clerk, 
or some other honest neighbour, and so back again 
and Hooker? laments the 


? 


without any more ado;’ 
miserable days in which an orderly burial service 

was deemed “unmeet, undecent, and unfit for 
Christianity.” 

When we open the Communion Office we are te in 
confronted by the same reckless indifference to munion 
Catholic doctrine and practice, and an ever-widening ts 
divergence from the lines laid down by the first 
Reyvisionists. 

The title was changed from “The Supper of the The Titles, 
Lorp and the Holy Communion, commonly called 
the Mass,” into “The order for the administration 


1 Works, yv. 168. 2 Eccles, Pol., V. lxxv. 4. 


92 The Puritan Innovations. 


of the Lorp’s Supper or the Holy Communion.” 
And here we cannot but commend them at least in 
part for the alteration. 

“ Mass,”! as most of us are aware, was derived from 
the Latin missa, in the formula “ite, missa est’”— 


at the utterance of 
which words the congregation left the Church. Now 


“Depart, it is the dismissal, 


on the grounds that the designation is not Scriptural 
nor primitive nor significant, the action of the 
Revisionists in discontinuing it finds full and ample 
justification. We think they would have shown 
further discretion if they had eliminated also the 
title of “the Lorp’s Supper.” It is supposed to 
rest on the authority of St. Paul, “When ye come 
together into one place, this is not to eat the LoRD’s 
Supper,”? but a careful examination of the passage 
leads to the conclusion that the Apostle there applies 
it to the Agape or Love-feast in combination with 
the Holy Eucharist, not to the latter considered by 

1 Missa, of which Mass is a corruption, is probably a noun of 
an unusual form, like collecta and obdlata, and is frequently so 
used: ef. Casstan de Cenob. Instit. lib. iii. c. vii., Missam stans 
pro foribus prestolatur. Sr. Aucust. Serm. xlix., Post sermonem 
fit missa Catechumenis. It is first used by St. AmBROSE, Zp. ad 
Marcellin. p. 853, ed. Bened., Missam facere ceepi. 

21 Cor. xi. 17-384. Itis impossible to account for St. Paul’s rapid 
transitions in this passage except by recognising the close union 


of the two Feasts. Part of his language refers to the Agape, part 
to the Eucharist. 


The Puritan Innovations. 93 


itself. Indeed, had this not been so, the extreme 
rarity of the designation among the early Fathers? 
would be quite unaccountable. Not till the latter 
half of the fourth century is it adopted by any 
writer ; and it is worth mentioning that at two of 
the early Councils,” the title is distinctly appropriated 
for another Feast. The language is, “One day in 
the year in which the Lorp’s Supper is celebrated,” 
where it refers not to the Holy Communion, but 
to a commemorative Feast on Maundy Thursday 
evening in imitation of our Lord’s Last Supper 
with His disciples preceding the institution of the 
Eucharist. Apart then from the uncertainty of its 
usage in Scripture and its extreme rarity in Patristic 
literature, it might well have yielded to titles with 
better claims and with no tendency to create 
confusion.? 

1 The first of the Fathers who uses the title of ‘“‘the Lorp’s 
Supper” in the modern acceptation is St. Basil. In answering the 
question whether the Oblation should be made in a private dwell- 
ing, he says that we ought neither to take ‘‘a common supper in 
a Church nor to degrade the Lorp’s Supper in a house,” Ep. liv. 
c. 7. Sr. CoRysostom uses the term more than once: cf. Hom. 
xxvii. in 1 Cor. 

3 The third Council of Carthage 418 a.D., Can. xliv. The Council 
of Trullo, 683 a.D., Can. xxix. 

3 The earliest title was most probably ‘‘the Breaking of the 
Bread,” ci Acts ii. 42 and 46, xx. 7. IcNnat. ad Ephes. c. xx. 


““The Eucharist” was unquestionably a familiar title almost 
from the first, 1 Tim. ii. 1 is of doubtful reference, but it seems 


Omissions, 


94 The Puritan Innovations. 


In the Exhortation read at the time of the 
Celebration the passage in which a blasphemer, 
adulterer, and any one guilty of grievous crime 
was exhorted not to come to the Holy Table before 
he had bewailed his sins, was transposed and 
inserted in the exhortation to be read on the 
Sunday or holy day preceding. The propriety of 
this change is patent, “For,” writes Bishop Cosin,* 
“is any person who comes at that time purposely to 
receive the Communion likely to discover himself 
(if he be guilty) in the presence of all the congre- 
gation by rising up and suddenly departing from 
it?” 

There is along array of omissions, as was naturally 
to be expected. 
highly probable that St. Paul should bid Hucharists to he 
offered on behalf of such a king as Nero, and equaily improbable 
that he should exhort ¢o give thanks for him. Ignatius uses it, 
Ep. ad Philadelph. c. iv., ad Smyrn. c. vii. viii. Many others 
also use it, Justin Martyr, Irenzeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Origen, and it is worthy of notice that it became so common that 
the word was Latinised and Syriacised : cf. TERTULLIAN, de Cor. 
Mil. c. iii. and the Syriac Version of Acts ii. 42 and 46. ‘“‘The 
Communion,” which St. Paul used, was some considerable time 
before it was popularly adopted. Many of the references often 
given are inapplicable, indicating Church-fellowship and privileges 
rather than the Holy Eucharist. Having, however, Scriptural 
authority, and being at the same time especially appropriate in 
meaning, it may well be accepted as a suitable designation for the 


Sacred Feast. 
1 Works, v. 515. 


The Puritan Innovations. 95 


Besides some especially significant, to be con- 
sidered presently, the following are to be noticed :— 

The Introits, which were the shorter Psalms or 
portions of the 119th selected one for each Sunday 
or holy day, and sung immediately before the 
Collect and Epistle. It has been conjectured that 
they were omitted with a view to the substitution 
of the metrical version,) which was partly composed 
by Sternhold at this time, but the speedy discon- 
tinuance of the Prayer-book at the accession of 
Queen Mary prevented them carrying out their 
intentions. 

A second Service for Celebration on Christmas 
Day and Easter was erased from the Book. 

The concluding paragraph of the Exhortation, 
following the direction for such as were troubled in 
conscience to resort to the priest “for comfort and 
absolution,” previously ran thus: “requiring such as 
shall be satisfied with a general confession, not to be 
offended with them that do use, to their further satis- 

ing, the auricular and secret confession to the priest ; 
nor those also which think needful or convenient, 
for the quietness of their own consciences, particu- 
larly to open their sins to the priest, to be offended 
with them that are satisfied with their humble 


2 Scupamone’s Notitia Eucharistica, Part L cap. Iv. $ iii 


96 The Puritan Innovations. 


confession to GoD and the general confession to the 
church. But in all things to follow and keep the 
rule of charity, and every man to be satisfied with 
his own conscience, not judging other men’s minds 
or consciences ; whereas he hath no warrant of Gop’s 
word to the same.” 

Few persons, who recognise the real teaching of 
the Church upon Confession and Absolution, can fail 
to regret that such valuable counsel should have 
been removed. In opposition to the Roman view 
it distinctly repudiates the necessity of private 
confession, by implying that in principle there is no 
advantage in private over public absolution: as one 
of the most eminent of our bishops writes to his 
clergy :'—“ Any one who is sincerely penitent, even 
in the largest congregation, will receive as the 
absolving words are uttered, precisely the same 
benefit as if he knelt before the priest singly and 
alone.” ... “He may die without having ever made 
a private confession, and yet he may have passed 
again and again with fulness of effect under the keys 
of the kingdom.” But at the same time it distinctly 
admits full liberty of conscience to have recourse to 
this special ordinance of the Church in time of need. 

In the * Prayer for the whole state of Christ’s 


1 BisHop WooprorD's Primary Charge. 


The Puritan Innovations. 97 


Church,” all reference to the dead was left out, 
and thus the immemorial practice of remembering 
in the Eucharist those who had departed in the 
faith was disregarded. 

A few others of more or less importance require 
notice: such as the withdrawal of the rubric direct- 
ing the minister to put to the wine “a little pure 
and clean water.” No reason was assigned for this, 
nor can any be conjectured. The custom of admix- 
ture was a natural one, if it be true, as most Jewish 
authorities maintain, that it was the habit of the 
Jews generally to dilute their wine with water; and 
so we find the practice almost universal in the 
Primitive Church. It continues in the Eastern and 
Roman Churches, and as it is impossible to find in 
it any doctrinal symbolism of dangerous or doubtful 
import, and as many leading Divines? since the 
Reformation have not hesitated to consecrate “the 
mixed Chalice,” it is to be regretted on Vincentian 
principles that the rubric should have been erased. 

Two other less important directions were omitted : 
one that at the administration the Bread should be 
“ynleavened and round” in shape: the other that 


1 Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 67. IrEnaus, v.ii.3. Sr. CYPRIAN, 
Ep. Ixiii. 

2 BIsHOPS ANDREWES, Cosin, WiLson. Cf, ScupamoRE’s Not. 
Euch, Part I, cap. XI. § x. 


G 


Additions. 


98 The Puritan Innovations. 


it should be placed in the mouth of the Communi- 
cant at the priest’s hands. 

We next consider two additions to the Service, 
viz.: the Decalogue and the Second Exhortation. 

The Revisionists desired to introduce some rule 
or standard for self-examination before communicat- 
ing, in view of St. Paul’s direction, “Let a man 
examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread 
and drink of that cup.” The Decalogue probably 
suggested itself to them from the existing practice of 
reading and expounding it during this service from 
time to time. 

It was a happy thought which prompted them to 
take the Kyries, which in the First Prayer-book were 
repeated nine times at this part of the service, and 
with the addition of another, adapt them as ten 
responsory petitions for the ten commandments. 

Whether it would have been more in harmony 
with the highest Christian service to have introduced 
the standard of self-examination from Christ’s com- 
mentary in the Sermon on the Mount, rather than 
the stern formula of the Jewish code itself, may be 
an open question. The American Liturgy supple- 
ments it by St. Matt. xxii. 37-40, and the Scotch 
Liturgy directs the people to “the mystical import- 
ance” of the commands, as well as “ the letter.” 


The Puritan Innovations. 99 


The second addition was an Exhortation for 
occasional use when the Curate found the people 
“negligent to come to the Holy Communion.” From 
1552 A.D. to 1662 A.D. the following passage occurred 
in it; “And whereas ye offend GoD so sore in refusing 
this holy banquet, I admonish, exhort, and beseech 
you that unto this unkindness ye will not add any 
more; which thing ye shall do if ye stand by as 
gazers and lookers on them that do communicate, 
and be no partaker of the same yourselves. For 
what thing can this be accounted else than a further 
contempt and unkindness unto God? Truly itisa 
great unthankfulness to say nay, when ye be called ; 
but the fault is much greater when men stand by 
and yet will neither eat nor drink this Holy Com- 
munion with others. I pray you, what can this be 
else but even to have the mysteries of Christ in 
derision? It is said unto all, Take ye and eat: take 
and drink ye all of this; Do this in remembrance 
of Me. With what face then, and with what 
countenance shall ye hear these words? What will 
this be but a neglecting, a despising and mocking 
of the testament of Christ? Wherefore rather than 
ye should do so, depart you hence and give place 
to them that be godly disposed. But when you 
depart, I beseech you, ponder with yourselves from 


100 The Puritan Innovations. 


whom ye depart. Ye depart from the Lorp’s Table, 
ye depart from your brethren, and from the banquet 
of most heavenly food.” 

This was what Cosin calls a “religious invective” 
against the principle of solitary Masses in which the 
priest alone communicated. It has in disregard of 
its true purpose been mixed up with the modern 
controversies on the legitimacy of “ non-communicat- 
ing attendance.” 

Neither in its introduction in 1552 A.D. was it 
intended to discourage anything as practised in the 
present day; nor in its subsequent withdrawal was 
it designed to sanction it. An examination of its 
language will show that it is wholly irrelevant to 
the case. The Revisionists had in their mind 
irreligious men who never communicated, and there- 
fore profaned the service by an irreverent presence, 
for they contrast them with “the godly disposed.” 
With such they are certainly not to be confounded, 
who, being frequent communicants, and realising 
fully that the greatest value of the ordinance lies 
in participation, are unwilling to forego a lesser 
blessing, if they have already partaken on the same 
day, or from some cause are unprepared for it. 

But we pass to matters of greater moment. 

In this revised Service, the Sacrificial aspect was 


The Puritan Innovations. IOI 


greatly obscured by that of Communion. Sacrificial feel sae 
terms were for the most part suppressed: sacerdotal obscured. 
vestments forbidden: the position of the altar was 
changed, and the arrangement of important parts of 

the service disturbed. Everything, in short, was 

done, as the Revisionists fondly hoped, to dissociate 

the mind of the worshipper from all thoughts of 

oblation or sacrifice. 

The direction was cancelled which ordered that 
at the appointed time the Celebrant should “ put 
apon him a plain alb or surplice, with a vestment 
or cope,” which, whether invariably so from the 
beginning or not, was unquestionably and universally 
associated at this time with the idea of sacrifice. 
The term “Altar,” which was the correlative of 
sacrifice, was erased from this and every other rubric, 
and Table or Holy Table substituted. The most 
honourable place occupied by the Altar all through 
the Church’s history was left vacant, and the Table 
brought down to the body of the Church, and as a 
necessary consequence regarded simply as a Board 
from which holy Food was distributed, and nothing 
more. ; 

The Celebrant who had stood “humbly afore the 
midst of the Altar” was directed to stand “at the 
north side of the Table.” 


The 
doctrine of 
the Real 
Presence 
discoun- 
tenanced 
in divers 
ways. 


102 The Puritan Innovations. 


And lastly, a displacement? of the Prayer of 
Oblation was effected. It had long been inseparably 
united with the Act of Consecration by which the 
Bread and Wine were declared to be the Body that 
was broken and the Blood which was shed; but by 
disconnecting them, and placing the prayer after the 
consumption of the consecrated Elements, the idea 
of offering these to the Father as a commemorative 
Oblation of Christ’s Blessed Body and Blood was 
cast into the shade. Not content with emptying 
the words of their obvious force by the change of 
position, the Revisionists went further and made its 
entire omission possible by allowing the Thanks- 
giving Prayer to be used as an alternative. This 
was a direct breach of Catholic usage. 

To pass on, they were no less anxious to dis- 
countenance the doctrine of the Real Presence. 

Four things especially betray their design. 

The discontinuance of the Invocation of the 
Holy Ghost upon the Elements, and of the singing 
of the “ Agnus Dei;” the substitution of the second 
clause, “Take and eat this,” ...and “Drink 
this” . . . for the first, “The Body of Our Lorp,” 

1 At the same time the short Exhortation, the Confession, the 
Absolution, the comfortable words, and the Prayer of Humble 


access, all of which had followed the Consecration, were now 
placed before it. 


The Puritan Innovations. 103 


etc. . . . “The Blood of our Lord,” ete.; . . . and 
lastly, the insertion of the “Black Rubric” or 
“Declaration of Kneeling :” upon each of these it 
will be necessary to dwell. 


In almost every Primitive Liturgy! there had been ae he 
cation 0 


a distinct prayer that the Spirit of Gop would the Holy 
sanctify the Elements that they might become an: 
the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ. To 
eliminate this then was break away from Catholic 
usage as well as to ignore the immediate action of 
the Holy Ghost, which is the great vivifying Agent 
in holy things. 

And here we would observe that this is happily 
recognised in the administration of the other great 
Sacrament, the operation of the Holy Spirit being 


1In the Liturgy of St. James (Greek) the prayer is, ‘“‘Send, O 
LORD, upon us and upon these Thy gifts set forth Thy all-holy 
Spirit the Lorp and the Life-giver . . . that He may make this 
Bread the Holy Body of Thy Christ and this Cup the precious 
Blood of Thy Christ.” Cf. Hammonn’s Litt. Hast and West, p. 43. 

Nearly the same language is repeated in that of St. Mark, 7. p. 
187, also in that of St. Basil, 7b. p. 114. The Invocation is found 
in a shorter form in many of the Western Liturgies, e.g. the Galli- 
can and Mozarabic. 

That which the Revisionists of 1552 a.D. eliminated ran thus :— 
«And with Thy Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bless and 
sanc>}tify these Thy gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine, that 
they may be unto us the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly 
beloved Son Jesus Christ.” It is retained with verbal alterations 
in the Scotch and American Prayer-books. It has been held of 
such importance that the Eastern Church ascribes the Consecra- 
tion to this. 


The Agnus 
Dei. 


The 
formula of 
distribu- 
tion, 


104 Lhe Puritan Innovations. 


mentioned no less than three times in the opening 
of the Service. 

With the discontinuance of the “Agnus Dei,” 
beautiful as it is, we can find no fault if we are 
satisfied not to overstep the paths of Primitive 
Antiquity. It had no place in the early Liturgies 
or Sacramentaries, and was probably not introduced 
in England till the times of Ailfric, in the middle of 
the tenth century, nor much earlier in any foreign 
Churches. 

The Form of Words previously used at the distri- 
bution of the Elements was deliberately abandoned 
in violation of an almost uniform tradition from the 
beginning. However far we go back we trace an- 
inseparable connexion not only in idea, but in 
expression, between the Bread and the Body—the 
Wine and the Blood. Often when the Priest gave 
the Sacramental Elements he simply said, “The 
Body of our Lord Jesus Christ,” “The Blood, ete.,” 
and the Communicant indicated his assent or his 
desire for its realisation by adding “ Amen.” 

In the Sarum Missal the Formula had expanded 
into “The Body of our Lorp Jesus Christ keep thy 
soul unto eternal life,’ Amen; and the same had 
been unhesitatingly adopted in the First Prayer- 
book. But when the second Revisionists approached 


The Puritan Innovations. 105 


it with the knowledge that it admitted of only one 
interpretation, viz., that the Body of Christ was 
given in the Sacrament, they determined to elimin- 
ate it altogether and substitute another which would 
give no countenance to the belief of those who 
maintained that the words of the institution, “This 
is my Body,’ were more than a mere figure of 
speech. 


The last of the four was the “Declaration of ae rs 
Kneeling,” in which it was asserted that that pos- Rubi’ 


ture did not indicate that any adoration was offered 
unto the Sacramental Elements or to any “ Real and 
Essential Presence” of Christ’s natural Body. The 
words “ Real and Essential” are to be noted, because 
they are no longer in the Rubric, having yielded to 
“Corporal” at the final Revision. The history of 
this Rubric? affords sufficient evidence that its intro- 

1 The Act of Uniformity passed on April 6th, 1552 a.D., and fixed 
All Saints’ Day, November Ist, as the date upon which the Revised 
Book was to come into use. On October 27th a Declaration 
“touching the kneeling at the receiving of the Holy Communion” 
was forwarded by the Privy Council to the Lord Chancellor for 
insertion in the New Book, . The only authority it had was the 


King’s signature. It is supposed to have been compiled by 
Cranmer, who, as well as the King, was yielding more and more 


‘every day to the influence of the Foreign Reformers. At the 


Elizabethan Revision it was treated as an illegal interpolation, and 
ignored. Its reintroduction at the Final Revision was due to the 
influence of Gauden and Morley. The Bishops, however, having 
carefully guarded the Catholic doctrine by a change of language, 


Suggested 
explana- 
tions of the 
principles 
adopted. 


106 The Puritan Innovations. 


duction was intended as a concession to pacify the 
foreigners, who never ceased to characterise kneeling 
to communicate as a superstitious and idolatrous 
act. 

Now the above is a long and heavy bill of 
indictment against the Second Revisionists for depar- 
ture from Catholic doctrine. 

Can anything be urged generally in mitigation of 
the verdict which the Catholic mind is impatient 
to pronounce? Apologists' here and there have 
argued in their defence, that they did not in reality 
intend to abandon the doctrines and usages which 
they appeared to supersede: that many of the 
changes were made with the view of bringing into 
prominence principles which had been thrust out of 
sight to the great loss and injury of the Church in 
medieval times and at the first Revision. ‘“ Altar,” 
for instance, was not withdrawn, as intimating a 
denial that what was offered thereon was in some 
sense sacrificial, but “Table” was substituted be- 


cause the predominance of the Sacrificial aspect had 


completely obscured the other side of Eucharistic 


do not appear to have resisted the concession to the Presbyterians, 
who expressed their conviction that ‘‘the Church of England is 
for transubstantiation because of our kneeling.” 

1 (Cf. FREEMAN’s Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii. pp. 
123-126. 


~ a ae 


Lhe Puritan Innovations. 107 


teaching, viz., the Communion of the Blessed Body 
and Blood. Again, touching the words of adminis- 
tration and “the Black Rubric,” the First Book, they 
say, had affirmed what the Elements were—the 
Second Book aimed at explaining what they were 
not. 

It is a very plausible defence, and finds some 
support in the official statements of the Revisionists 
shemselves. 

In the Act of Uniformity which gave legal force 
to their Revision they stated upon what grounds 
they had entered upon the work, and what their 
general opinion was of the Book they superseded. 

The Revision had been necessitated, they said, 
because “divers doubts had risen for the fashion 
and ministration ”’+ of the services, which proceeded 
“rather by the curiosity of the minister and mis- 
takers than of any worthy cause.” 

And the First Prayer-book the Statute declared to 
be “a very godly order, agreeable to the Word of God 
and the Primitive Church, very comfortable to all 
good people desiring to live in Christian conversation, 
and most profitable to the estate of this realm.” 

These statements seem well-nigh inexplicable on 
any other theory than that which the Apologists 


1Cf. CoLiizr, v. 464. 2 Ibid. 


108 The Puritan Innovations. ; 


have set forth, viz., that the Revisionists had not 
really wished to renounce in any essential matters the 
teaching of the First Prayer-book. But if we could 
bring ourselves to accept it, we should still have to 
hold them up to rebuke for the weakness of their 
judgment and a strange ignorance of the ways of 
the world. It saves them from Scylla to plunge 
them into Charybdis, 

Aes we The way to supplement is not to begin by taking 

speepfing away; and to remove one word or usage and replace 

planation, it by another is substitution, not addition. If a 
particular phraseology, ever connected with one set 
of ideas, was ousted by another phraseology which 
had always been used to clothe ideas of a totally 
different order, no amount of side-notes, still less 
general assertions, in a Statute, bound up at its first 
publication with the Service-book, but disconnected 
from it for ever afterwards, could insure later gene- 
rations from the danger of being misled. 

It seems difficult to acquit the Revisionists of 
hypocrisy or infatuation. He who best understands — 
the times and circumstances will be best fitted to 
decide whether they had desired in their hearts to 
revolutionise the worship of the Church, and were 
too cowardly to own it, or whether they had only 
aimed at developing obliterated features, but had 


The Puritan Innovations. 109 


proved by their bungling their incompetence for the 
task ; and it will be a matter of no little surprise if 
the verdict is not, that they were guilty of insin- 
cerity rather than mismanagement. 

The study of their lives and opinions forces upon Their 
us the conviction that their object was to eradicate salee 
the ancient Catholic doctrines; and we may be ee Aig 
thankful that though they were able to prosecute 
their end in so far as they succeeded in eliminating 
the most salient features, the principles were too 
firmly embedded in the whole framework of the 
Liturgical Office to be rooted out by their action. 

The reverent student will trace with satisfaction Their aims 
the over-ruling influence of Gop’s good Spirit Bir 
frustrating their designs, and leaving them so far 
hopelessly baffled, that at the final Revision, the 
Church was able solemnly to declare that the true 
.Eucharistic doctrine had remained essentially 
unchanged from the first Revision to the last. 

In the Preface to the Prayer-book of 1662 A.D., The judg- 
which is now in use, the Revisionists expressed their peste ee 
conviction of this in unhesitating language. “We “P™ ie 
find, that in the Reigns of several Princes of blessed 
memory since the Reformation, the Church, upon 
just and weighty considerations her thereunto moy- 
ing, hath yielded to make such alterations in some 


IIO The Puritan Innovations. 


particulars, as in their respective times were thought 
convenient: Yet so, as that the main Body and 
Essentials of it, as well in the chiefest materials, as 
in the frame and order thereof, have still continued 
the same unto this day and do yet stand firm and 
unshaken.” It is impossible to exaggerate the 
weight of this declaration, which we must never 
forget is “the assertion not of individual theolo- 
gians, but the deliberate pronouncement of the 
Church speaking for herself.”+ 


1 Cf. Bishop WOODFORD’s Primary Charge 


CHAPTER IIL 


The Clisabethan Reaction, 


HEN King Edward breathed his last the 
Reformed Worship of the English Church 
hung for a moment in the balance. 
“No compulsion of her subjects in the matter of The pro- 
religion” was the promise by which Mary gained P°5S 


supporters in Norfolk and Suffolk against her rival ysis 
for the throne; and her words were taken up ™®V- 
and repeated in every part of the kingdom. And 
when she entered the Tower and lifted the 
imprisoned Gardiner! from his knees, and let him 

go free, it was, she might have urged, one fulfil- 
ment of her promise, but it was interpreted very 
differently. Anglican and Protestant began to 
tremble for their faith ; and as soon as her Crown 

was secure she threw off the disguise. A dagger 
launched by some fiery zealot against a preacher? at 


1 The Duke of Norfolk was released at the same time. Cf. 
CoLLIER, vi. 10. 
2 Bourne, Canon of St, Paul’s, was the preacher. 
1 


The Re- 
action upon 
her death. 


II2 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


St. Paul’s Cross, who divining his mistress’s mood 
inveighed against the Prayer-book, was the signal 
for decisive measures to begin. Cranmer was 
confined within the walls of his Palace, Ridley was 
committed to the Tower, Cox was shut up in a cell 
in the Marshalsea, from which Bonner was released, 
and many others* were imprisoned. In Canterbury 
Cathedral the suffragan Bishop, seizing the advan- 
tage of the Primate’s confinement, stopped the legal 
service, and with all the pomp and circumstance of 
the Roman Ritual restored the Mass: and from 
this beginning the old use regained its position step 
by step till the last vestige of opposition, that of 
the Legislature itself, entirely disappeared. The 
Houses of Parliament, with scarcely a dissentient 
voice, passed a vote of repentance for their schism, 


‘and after receiving, in behalf of the nation, absolu- 


tion from the Papal legate on their bended knees, 
they heard the proclamation read, that England had 
entered again into union with Rome. For four 
years no language of prayer and praise but that 
which spoke in the Breviary and Missal was ever 
heard in the Churches. But Mary died, and 
Elizabeth reigned : and a fresh epoch in the religion 
and worship of the Church began. Never in the 
1 £.g. Hooper, Coverdale, and Latimer. 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 113 


world’s history was a movement initiated under 
more difficult circumstances than the Elizabethan 
Reaction. It was well for England that the Sovereign, 
who was to guide it, was possessed of an unconquer- 
able will and a tenacity of purpose rarely equalled, 
perhaps never surpassed. 

Let us look awhile at the difficulties by which eS 
she was confronted when she resolved, as she did by which 
in heart from the beginning, to re-establish the ue 
Reformed Worship of the Catholic Church, unim- fronted. 
paired if possible alike by Papal and Puritan innova- 
tions. 

The clergy of the country were pledged to Rome ; — — 
the posts of dignity and influence from Bishopric to Party. 
Prebend were filled, with rare exceptions, by men 
who were intensely Roman ; the Parish priests were 
the same, in a less degree no doubt, but in over- 
whelming majority, for the vigilant eye of Bonner 
had promoted none that were lukewarm, and spared 
from deprivation few that were disaffected. Here 
then was one obstacle of appalling magnitude. 

And there was a second hardly less formidable. 

For Edward it would have been trivial: for Eliza- 

beth it was overwhelming. The one would have 

seized it and made it a vantage ground: the other 

would be satisfied with nothing short of victory 
H 


From the 
exiled 
clergy. 


The ex- 
tremes to 
which they 
proceeded, 


II4 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


over it, or at least in spite of it. This was the 
Puritan Party which long banishment! and depres- 
sion had embittered, and which now the prospect 
of release made buoyant with hope and eager for 
reascendancy. 

When Mary declared herself for the Roman 
Faith, and the Second Prayer-book was suspended, 
all who held views that were decidedly Protestant 
determined to escape from the intolerance which 
threatened them at home. An exodus to the 
Continent took place of some hundreds of the 
clergy, and Strasburg and Frankfort, Zitirich and 
Geneva became for the English, what London had 
been a few years before, when it afforded a sanctuary 
from the Inquisition of Charles v. and the Papal 
Interim. And many of the exiles were seized at 
once with a spirit of unrestrained freedom. Calvin, 
who at Frankfort was looked upon as an oracle, 
denounced the English Prayer-book, and his denuncia- 
tion produced a powerful effect. Knox, the fiery 
revolutionist in Church government, placed himself at 
the head of those who wished to shake themselves free 


1 The exiles are variously estimated from three hundred to 
eight hundred. Of the clergy the most notable were Bishops 
Poinet, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale and Bale, Deans Cox, Turner, 
Horne, and Sampson, and of others Grindal, Jewel, and Pilkington, 
of the laity Sir John Cheke, and Sir Anthony Cook. Cf. CoLuiEr, 
vi. 19. 


e/a 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 115 


from the forms and ceremonies to which they had been 
tied. Thus a party was created of what we may call 
ultra-Protestants.1_ A few held out vigorously against 
these democratic innovations, under the leadership 
of Cox, and for a time they succeeded in preserving 
the English ritual in its integrity, but time and cir- 
cumstances told upon them. Living as exiles in 
want and penury, they found that they had little 
to spend on vestments and ornaments, on the 
luxuries and beauty of an elaborate worship, and 
indifference to externals crept in, and the laxity of 
rule and discipline of their neighbours had its effect 
upon them and made them impatient of order. 
And so it came about that when they returned to 
England, even the bareness of worship which the 
close of Edward’s reign had encouraged was made 
barer still by Genevan and Frankfort usage. 
Confronted by these, what was the Queen to do? 
She was determined to overthrow the Roman wor- 
ship, because with all the pomp and ceremonial 
which she loved, it involved doctrines which she 
disbelieved, and she shrank from an alliance with 
the power which would have made the task so 
easy, because her nature rebelled instinctively 


1 Many interesting details of these quarrels are given by Collier, 
vi. 144-158. 


116 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


against the unattractive nakedness of Puritanical 
worship. 
There was yet a third party, albeit apparently a 
small one, with which she decided to identify herself. 
Bue car When the Romanists came in, the Protestants fled ; 
but there were some who dreaded the association 
of the foreign Churches more than contact with 
Rome, and they determined to remain in England, 
some of them conforming to the Roman worship, 
and retaining their posts, others, whose consciences 
were more tender, resigning their livings and retir- 
ing into privacy, contented to bide their time and 
hope for better days. With this third party, the 
less violent portion of the exiles, who had clung 
to the Prayer-book through all their vicissitudes, 
were practically united on their return. It was 
reinforced too no doubt by the adherence of 
numbers of the laity, for this is the only explana- 
tion of the conduct of the representatives of the 
people, in the Houses of Parliament, when they 
were called upon to declare their opinion on the 
Acts of Uniformity. 


The It will be well to ascertain as clearly as possible 
Queen's what the Queen’s doctrinal views really were, at the 
ee time when she was called upon to assume the 


direction of affairs. There can, I think, be little 


eo 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 117 


question that they underwent considerable modifica- 
tion in her later years, and it has been a common 
practice to lose sight of this and to speak of her as 
though she had held in the beginning the faith and 
opinions in which she died. Every surrounding had 
tended to lower the standard. Of the Bishops of 
her reign Parker was the nearest in sympathy, but 
with none of the Queen’s enthusiasm and ever ready 
to make concessions. Of her councillors Cecil was 
most faithful to her wishes, but in the maintenance 
of Catholic faith and worship only a half-hearted 
minister; while Essex was an avowed patron of 
nonconformity, and Leicester, “the wicked Earl,” 
seemed to have been born for the destruction of the 
Church. Such a combination of evil influences 
could hardly fail to affect her. 

At the beginning of her reign she was distinctly 
Catholic in the true and proper sense of the term: 
and we shall see how she succeeded in more ways 
than one in stamping her Catholicity upon the 
revised Liturgy which was shortly put forth, And 
this point can hardly be too carefully considered or 
too clearly established, because it must have a most 
important bearing upon the “ Vestiarian Contro- 
versy,” and the right interpretation of the disputed 
Advertisements. 


118 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


In proclaiming her title she designated herself 
“ of the true and ancient and Catholic faith.” When 
the adoption of a Prayer-book was mooted, she 
expressed a strong predilection in favour of the First 
of Edward vi. She had long been a student of 
patristic lore and the early history of the Church, 
and it had created in her an intense love for 
antiquity and reverence for old and time-honoured 
rites and observances. 

Her views upon the crucial point of the Presence 
of Christ in the Holy Eucharist she was known to 
have expressed with a caution and reverence which 
might well be imitated. 

“Twas Gop the Word that spake it, 
He took the Bread and brake it, 


And what the Word did make it, 
That I believe and take it.” 


And once when the preacher in the Royal Chapel 
confessed with reverence and becoming humility the 
mystery of the Real Presence in the Blessed 
Sacrament, she expressed her satisfaction by giving 
thanks to him openly for his pains and piety at the 
conclusion of the service. 


1 This was her reply to a Roman priest who tried to extract 
from her a declaration of her belief. It is quoted in HEYLI, ii. 
261, from Baker’s Chron. 329. 

2 HEYLMN, ii. 317. 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 119 


And when de Feria,! Philip’s ambassador, pressed 
her to explain the doctrines which her people would be 
expected to believe, she assured him that “she held that 
Gop was really present in the Sacrament,” though she 
was not prepared to accept the teaching of the Roman 
Catholics upon the manner of His Presence. All this 
shows very plainly the bent of her mind. 


The Puritans made a perpetual grievance of her Accused of 


allowing the Crucifix and Lights to remain on the ee 
altar in her chapel,” and Dean Nowell, when preach- 
ing before her in Lent, took occasion to speak by the 
way with little reverence of the symbol of the Cross ; 
whereupon Her Majesty called to him from her 
closet window “to retire from that ungodly digres- 
sion and return to his text.” 

The figure of the Crucified nailed to the Cross 
had become an object of intense aversion, but sober- 
minded judges would deem it an extreme measure 
to condemn her for Roman tendencies in using it, 
especially if her own avowed objections are allowed 
their legitimate weight. 

It is true that in selecting her Privy Council she 
retained a number of statesmen who had served the 


1 Frouve’s Hist. of Eliza. viii. 82. 

2 There is a long extract from Machyn’s Journal, showing how 
gradually the changes were made, in FORBES’S A7ticles, p. xviii. xix. 

3 Cf. Life of NOWELL, Athene Oxonienses. 


120 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


same office to Queen Mary, but she was actuated 
herein by prudential motives which admit of ample 
justification ; and she was careful to provide against 
an undue preponderance of influence by the addition 
of others? of very different views and policy. Again, 
she has been blamed for continuing to attend the 
Celebration of the Mass far longer than was necessary 
after her accession, but she exercised a wise discre- 
tion in determining to feel her way cautiously and 
avoid irritating her opponents by precipitate change. 
On one or two occasions, however, she thought fit 
to resist what she believed to be innovations upon 
Catholic usage. The Romans. for instance, elevated 
the Host that it might be worshipped, and against 
this she protested. It is recorded that on Christmas 
day she directed the Bishop,? who was about to 
celebrate in the Royal Chapel, not to elevate the 
Host in her presence, and that, when he replied that 
“his life was the Queen’s but his conscience was his 

1 The Archbishop of York, the Marquess of Winchester, the 
Earls of Arundel, Derby, Pembroke and Shrewsbury, the Lords 
Clynton and Effingham, Sirs Thomas Cheyney, William Petre, 
John Mason, Richard Sackville and Doctor Wotton. 

2 The following were chosen by herself: the Marquess of 
Northampton, the Earl of Bedford, Sirs Thomas Parry, Edward 
Rogers, Ambrose Cave, William Cecil, and Nicholas Bacon. Cf. 
HEYLY, ii. 269. Soames, Hist. of Zlizab. 605. 


3 Oglethorpe, Bishopof Carlisle, Cf. LINGARD, vii. 255. HEYLIN, 
ii. 272. 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 121 


own,” she marked her disapproval by rising before 
the Gospel and leaving with her attendants. 

We pass now to see what, under these circum- 
stances, was the tendency of the ecclesiastical 
measures with which she began her reign. 

Her first act was the introduction of certain parts Her first 
of the Service in English in the Royal Chapel, viz., ae 
the Litany, the Lorp’s Prayer, Creed, Epistle, and ee 
Gospel. Then with the intention of checking the 
intemperate zeal of the advanced Reformers, who, in 
the belief that she was on their side, began at once 
a number of innovations, she issued a proclamation 
prohibiting any further departure from the estab- 
lished order of worship than such as she had 
sanctioned in her own chapel, till such time as 
“consultation should be had by her Majesty and 
her three estates of the realm.” 

Her next step was to take into her confidence Sir 
Thomas Smith, a man of great learning, and, what 
was especially helpful to her at such a crisis, pro- 
found knowledge of the laws of the country. He at : 
once drew up suggestions and embodied them in a 
document entitled “Device for the alteration of 
religion ;”} it is singularly interesting as expressive 
at every turn of the legal mind, which saw things 


1 CaRDWELL’S Hist. of Conferences, 43-48, 


A com- 
mnittee 
appointed. 


122 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


chiefly from the opponent’s side, and was occupied 
in forestalling the objections which would be 
raised. 

His advice, which was acted upon, was the 
immediate appointment of an imtimate cabinet of 
trusty Councillors, who should be made privy to the 
Queen’s designs and wishes, and aid her in the 
selection of a Committee of Divines to review the 
service and ceremonies of the Church. The inner 
circle was formed of Cecil, Gray, Northampton, and 
Bedford, and the revision of the Liturgy committed. 
to eight learned and able men, Parker, Grindal, 
Cox, Bill, Pilkington, Whitehead, and May, with Sir 
Thomas Smith to render such legal and lay assist- 
ance as they were likely to require. The Catholic 
and Protestant views were equally represented, but: 
those who held the latter, though chosen from the 
returned exiles, were of the more orthodox side, all 
having resisted the lax discipline and libertinism of 
Knox and his colleagues, and adhered throughout 
to the English order. They met for delibera- 
tion without any appointment under the great 
seal, but as a private body gathered together to 
advise the government how to proceed in the matter 
of religion. Their place of meeting was the lodging 
of their legal adviser in Cannon Row, Westminster : 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 123 


and the chair was taken by Parker. His health 
broke down shortly after, and Guest! was appointed 

to fill his place whenever he was unable to attend. 
The first question which they were called upon to 
decide was the basis of the proposed revision. Sir The paws 
Thomas Smith, as representing the Queen’s opinion, Preps 
advised the First Prayer-book of Edward vi. It not 
only expressed those Catholic doctrines which she 
was prepared to uphold, but the authority under 
which it had been issued was unimpeachable. Con- 
vocation had drawn it up, the voice of the people 

in Parliament had ratified it, the King had sealed 

it, and beyond all this it had been acknowledged 
by its Revisionists to have been compiled under the 
guidance and influence of the Holy Ghost. These = 
were weighty arguments in its favour, but the 
returned exiles interposed. They felt themselves to 

be the representatives of the whole Protestant body, 
and realising what a violent shock it would be to 
them to hear that a Book, which many of them dis- 
liked only one degree less than the Roman Use 
itself, was about to be presented to Parliament for 
adoption, they pleaded eagerly for that which had 


1 The name is sometimes spelt Gheast or Geste. His chief 
weakness lay in his fear of giving offence, which often led him to 
make concessions to the Puritans which Parker would certainly 
have resisted. Hook’s Life of Parker, 163. 


Legislation 
proposed. 


—_—— 


124 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


been last in use. And their arguments prevailed. 
The office of conciliating the Queen was undertaken 
by Parker. He was known to have great influence 
with her, and he succeeded in overcoming her deter- 
mination. His own inclinations were entirely with 
hers, but he was a far-seeing and sagacious counsel- 
lor, and he knew that to alienate the Protestants 
would be to leave the government, if not entirely 
without support, yet face to face with two bitterly 
hostile parties, which they would be powerless to 
resist. 

It is very probable that he gave the Queen assur- 
ances that the Second Prayer-book would only be 
nominally presented to Parliament: he had every 
hope that such alterations would be made as should 
strip it of its most obnoxious features, and so pre- 
vent her from doing any violence to her conscience 
in accepting it. 

After this preliminary was settled, the Committee 
had repeated sittings, and on the 15th of February, a 
Bill was laid before Parliament for Uniformity of 
worship, but deferred on the ground that the subject 
was not yet ripe for legislation, The Queen there- 
upon directed the Archbishop of York to make 
arrangements for a public disputation between the 
Roman and Reforming parties in Westminster 


PS NEI 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 125 


Abbey. Light disputants were chosen on either 
side. 

On the Roman side were Heath, Archbishop of Zanns a 
York, four Bishops, White of Winchester, Bayne of Westmin- 
Lichfield, Scott of Chester, Watson of Lincoln, Feck- casi. 
nam, Abbot of Westminster, Cole, Dean—and 
Chedsey Prebendary of St. Paul’s, and two Arch- 
deacons, Langdale of Lewes, and Harpsfield of 
Canterbury. 

On the side of the Reformers were Scory, late 
Bishop of Chichester, Cox, late Dean of Westminster, 

Horn of Durham, Sandys, Whitehead, Grindal, 
Guest, Elmar, and Jewel. 

Of the Advocates of Rome apart from Archbishop 
Heath, who however took no part in the discussions, 
there are only two whose names bear any distinc- 
tion in history,—Cole and Harpsfield,—the former as 
having been chosen for his learning to preach the 
Sermon at Oxford in justification of Cranmer’s 
sentence, the latter, for the unenviable reputation he 
gained in the Marian persecutions, as “ the inquisitor 
of Canterbury,” in pitiless cruelty second only to 
“the bloody Bonner.” 


1 The exact number has been much disputed. Collier, Cardwell, 
Fuller, and Strype give eight. Fox, Jewel, and others give nine. 
It has also been doubted whether the names of Cox and Sandys 
are rightly admitted. Cf. HEY, ii. 288. 


126 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


The other list presents a far different aspect, 
almost the whole number having left the mark of 
their names upon the annals of the age. 

Friday, March 31, was the day appointed for. the 
commencement of the combat. It must have been 
a striking spectacle even in a building which, 
excepting only St. Peter’s, has witnessed grander 
assemblages than any other in Europe. 

The gather- It was the arbitrament to which the Queen had 


ing of the : - : Aa 
disputants resolved to submit the rival claims of her divided 


atti subjects, and on the result of the disputations the 
gravest consequences appeared to depend. And the 
spectators were not unworthy of the occasion. The 
Lord Keeper of the Seal, Sir Nicolas Bacon, came 
representing the Crown, and as Moderator of the 
Assembly, may have occupied for the occasion the 
Abbot’s stall, which would only be vacated for the 
Queen or her delegate. The Privy Council, as next 
in order of dignity, were placed in the stalls of 
the Monks. The Prelates, and the rest of the dis- 
putants, some in their Convocation robes, others in 
their Academical dress, were seated in the Quire 
beneath, the one on the North, the other on the 
South. The Houses of Parliament, Nobility and 
Commons, were provided for where room could be 
found, for their sittings had been suspended that 


& 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 127 


all might attend that momentous contest. And such 
was the excitement and eager expectation of the 
populace, wherever sight could be obtained or 
hearing found, the Abbey was crowded with a dense 
mass of human beings. 

Three subjects had been agreed upon for dis- 
cussion :— 


Firstly, That it is repugnant to Gop’s Word, and es — 


the usage of the Primitive Church, that the service 
should be conducted in an unknown tongue. 

Secondly, That every Church has authority to vary 
or modify its forms of worship, with a view to 
edification. 

Thirdly, That the Mass is not a propitiatory 
sacrifice for the living and the dead. 

The terms of the discussion agreed upon were, 
that the Roman advocates should begin, their 
adversaries follow. It was pretended that the 
arrangement was made in deference to the superior 
rank and position of the Romans, and they accepted 
it, without thinking apparently, and were placed at 
a manifest disadvantage. 

Intellectually the Marian party were inferior, and 
could ill afford to make any such concession. The 
debate was opened with the question of the use of 
the Latin tongue in public service, and it ended 


The com- 
plaints of 
the Roman 
party. 


128 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


as every one expected in the total discomfiture of 
the defenders of the Roman practice! and so com- 
pletely did their adversaries overpower them in 
argument that they carried the audience completely 
with them, the vast assemblage raising loud plaudits 
at the conclusion, and the Prelates being covered 
with confusion and dismay. 

The following Monday was fixed for the continua- 
tion of the dispute, but when they reassembled, the 
Bishops demanded that the order of proceedings 
should be reversed: and argued that alike by the 
practice of the Schools and the Law Courts, as they 
maintained the negative of the question to be dis- 
cussed, they were entitled to the second place in the 
debate. And certainly they had justice on their side. 
Until the Law had deprived them of their position, 
they were the recognised guardians of the Religion 
of the country; and it was obviously their duty to 
continue at their post, and when assailed to repel the 
assault if they could, or to succumb if they must. 

But the Moderator ruled that the orders? 


1 The weakness of the Romans may be estimated by the speech 
of Cole, who was put forward to argue in favour of the use of the 
Latin tongue; it is not only feeble, but contains deliberate mis- 
representations of History. CarpDw. Confer. Docum. c. ii. p. 63. 

2 The order, drawn up by Cecil and assented to by both parties, 
was that as the balance of dignity lay on the sideof the Romans, their 
advocates should be called upon first to deliver their arguments, 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 129 


drawn up by the Queen admitted of no modifi- 
cation, and must be strictly complied with, or the 
discussion would be closed. Angry recriminations 
and bitter invectives were bandied from side to 
side, but neither party would yield. The Roman- 
ists were conscious of being overmatched, and de- 
cided that it was better to retire with at least a 
show of unfair treatment, than risk being fairly 
beaten. 


The Queen’s Representative rose from his seat and The 


M 


pronounced the discussion closed, but forgetting that closed the 


an arbiter should know no favour, he turned with : 


anger to the Bishops, and said, “You have refused 
to let us hear you; ere long, it may be, you will hear 
of us.” And the ominous threat was soon put into 
execution ; the Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln, 
who had been foremost in defying the Queen’s man- 
date, were committed to the Tower for contempt of 
court, and the rest were bound over in heavy 
recognisances to come up for judgment whenever 
they should be called upon, and eventually sentenced 
to considerable fines.1 

In a short time, the Parliament-sittings were 


recommenced, and one of the earliest measures 


1 The amounts were as follows:—for Bayne, £333, 6s. 8d. ; 
Oglethorpe, £250; Harpsfield, £40; Scott, 200 marks ; Cole, 500; 
and Chadsey, 40. SoaMEs, 655, n. 

I 


ebate. 


oderator 


Proposals 
for legisla- 
tion 
renewed, 


Opposition 
from the 
Abbot of 
Westmin- 
ster and 
Bishop 
Scott, 


130 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


brought on was the Bill which had been dropped three 
months before for Uniformity of worship. 

The debate in Westminster Abbey facilitated its 
progress. The Commons accepted it, as far as we 
can find, without’ a division, satisfied that it had 
received full consideration from competent commis- 
sioners; but the Lords, whom the presence of the 
spirituality in their councils had affected with a 
deeper concern for matters of religion, were in a far 
different mood, and offered vigorous opposition both 
at the second and third readings of the Bill. 

The first to rise was the Abbot of Westminster, 
and ashamed no doubt of the miserable exhibition 
which his party had made in the Abbey, and eager to 
retrieve the credit they had lost, he made a vigorous 
attack upon its principles. The arguments of his 
speech were directed to the establishment of three 
propositions :— 


Firstly, That the Faith which was imperilled was — 


that which had come down from ancient times. 

Secondly, That it was the only Faith which had 
ever been held with perfect consistency. 

Thirdly, That it fostered loyal obedience to the 
Crown and to all in authority. 

At the third reading, Scott, the Bishop of Chester, 
made a final effort to throw it out. His appeal was 


iad 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 131 


addressed especially to the lay members of the House, 
and he tried to overawe them by dwelling upon the 
weightiness, the darkness, the difficulty of the subject, 
“one touching life and death, upon which damnation 
depended;” and he drew a terrible picture of the 
danger and peril which hung over their heads if they 
erred in their judgment: and then, traversing the 
history of the past, and the settlement of the great dis- 
putes of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, 
in which no voice of the temporal power was suffered 
to be heard, he called upon his brethren of the laity 
to imitate the modesty of Emperors like Theodosius 
and Valentinian, and leave the settlement of Religion 
to the judgment of the Episcopate. 

Both speeches! have happily been preserved, and 
they are full of interest to those who study the 
turning-points of history. 

How they were answered or by whom, the annals 
of Parliament have left us no record ; but when we 
remember that notwithstanding the fact that the 
occupants of the Episcopal benches were pledged to 
support them, they were defeated, we may fairly 
conclude that their fallacies were exposed, and the 
fears which they conjured up disarmed of their sting. 


1 Carpw. Hist. Confer. Docum. ¢, ii. 98-117. Cf. Conmrer, vi, 
234-247. ' 


The Act ot 
Uniformity 
passed, 


Changes 
introduced, 


The 
reader’s 
place. 


132 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


The Bill passed! by a majority of three, the non-con- 
tents including the names of nine lords temporal and 
nine spiritual. It provided that the Second Prayer- 
book of Edward VI., as revised by a Committee of 
Divines, should be adopted throughout the kingdom 
on or after the Feast of St. John the Baptist next 
ensuing. 

Now let us see how the mind of the Queen was 
reflected in the changes. All but one perhaps 
involved important principles. That was simply 
the removal of an uncharitable petition in the Litany, 
which fostered a spirit of unchristian hatred, by 
praying for deliverance “from the tyranny of the 
Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities.” 

Of the others the first was a direction that prayers 
should be said “in the accustomed place ;” and the 
words, “as the people may best hear” were erased. 
There can be no question that “the accustomed 
place” was the Quire, where the prayers were wont to 
be said during the three years and a half, when the 
First Prayer-book of Edward was in use. It has 


1 On the 28th of April. It provided that the Revised Book 
should come into use on the Feast of St. John the Baptist (June 24th 
next ensuing). The chief dissentients on the Episcopal Benches 
were Heath, Bonner, Thirlby, Kitchen, Scott, and Oglethorpe. 
On the guestion, however, of the Oath of Supremacy Kitchen 
parted company from the rest and stood alone in accepting it, 
Cf. Dopp’s Ch. Hist. 133, ed. Tierney. 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 133 


been asserted that it may have been simply a return 
to the usage of the Second Book, but as that was 
only used for eight months in the metropolis, and 
probably much less time in the provinces, no usage it 
enforced or sanctioned could have been of sufficiently 
long duration to be designated by such an epithet 
as “accustomed.” Indeed it is extremely probable 
that, owing to the difficulties of communication, many 
of the more remote parishes never adopted the 
Book at all. 

The second was the introduction of an “ ornaments pn 
tubric,” which brought back the Eucharistic vest- Rubric. 
ments, and repealed the prohibition of 1552 a.p. An 
additional clause was appended referring to an Act 
of Parliament which gave the Queen power by her 
Royal prerogative “to take other order.” “ Provided 
always, and be it enacted, that such ornaments of 
the Church and of the ministers thereof shall be 
retained and be used, as were in this Church 
of England by authority of Parliament, in the 
second year of the reign of King Edward v1., until 
other order shall be therein taken by authority of 
the Queen’s Majesty, with the advice of her Com- 
missioners appointed and authorised under the Great 


1 The date fixed for its introduction was November Ist, 1552 
A.D., and Edward vi. died July 6th, 1553 a.p. 


The words 
of adminis- 
tration. 


134 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


Seal of England for causes Ecclesiastical, or of the 
Metropolitan of this Realm.” 

“ And also that if there shall happen any Contempt 
or Irreverence to be used in the Ceremonies or 
Rites of the Church, by the Misusing of the Orders 
appointed in this Book, the Queen’s Majesty may, 
by the like advice of the said Commissioners or 
Metropolitans, ordain and publish such further 
Ceremonies or Rites, as may be most for the 
Advancement of Gop’s glory, the Edifying of His 
Church, and the due Reverence of Christ's Holy 
Mysteries and Sacraments.” 

When these clauses are read together (and they 
were printed as one in all the Elizabethan Prayer- 
books) it points to the interpretation of the objects of 
the provision being in both cases rather a develop- 
ment than a restraint or modification of Ceremonial. 

The third was the happy combination, as we have it 
now, of the two clauses in the Form of administra- 
tion of the Elements: the first only having been used in 
the First Prayer-book, the second only in the Second. 

The fourth and last of any real import was the 
striking out of the “ Black Rubric,” which, the Queen 
insisted, had been illegally foisted into the Prayer- 
book after the revision was completed.! 

1 Cf. p. 105. 


«SUN el rai ya 
Nie ; 
4 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 135 


Such were the changes, exhibiting a marked 
determination of the Revisionists to recover from 
the retrograde movement of the close of Edward’s 
reign. That the whole ground was not regained is not 
so much a matter of surprise, as that, in the face of such 
opposing forces, they were able to regain so much. 

Even after Parliament had given legal force to the 
re-establishment of the reformed worship, efforts 
were made to stay the execution. The Queen was 
inexorable, and before the term of respite expired The Queen 
she resolved to summon the discontented Prelates Puvy oe 
into her presence and declare her unalterable resolve. Count 
Her Privy Council was called! and the whole 
Episcopal order and other ecclesiastics of distinction ; 
and Archbishop Heath rose in the name of Gop and 
the Church he represented, to entreat her even at 
the eleventh hour to reconsider her determination : 
and in a speech full of foreboding predicted the 
consequences if the See of St. Peter should cease to 
be obeyed. The Queen replied with a dignity and 
calmness that fills us with wonder in one so young 
before such an assembly, and the words she used 
have become so familiar on her lips, as almost to 


1On the 15th of May 1559 a.p. The Queen dwelt upon the 
Act of Supremacy passed in the late Parliament, and appealed 
to the Assembly to aid her in ‘‘abolishing superstition from the 
worship of the Church.” Hoox’s Life of Parker, 190. 


The In- 
junctions. 


136 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


have lost their original application: “ As for me and 
my house, we will serve the Lorp,”! adding, “My 
aim is to bind myself and my people to Christ, the 
King of kings, and not to the Roman See.” And 
the Assembly broke up. Within six weeks from 
that date, Breviary and Missal were superseded, and 
Forms of worship in which the laity were enabled 
to take an intelligent part restored to. the 
Churches. But the Queen was not satisfied to leave 
the enforcement of the Act to be carried out in the 
ordinary way. Before the year closed she issued a 
body of “ Injunctions” to insure conformity in some 
essential particulars. Let me mention two by way 
of illustration. 

The first was for the promotion of music in Divine 
Service. Recognising its value not only as a vehicle 
of praise but as a help to devotion, she made 
provision for the due maintenance of singing men 
and children, with a wise precaution that the service 
should not be made thereby less intelligible. And 
for the special comfort of those who delighted in 
music, she enjoined that at the beginning and end 
of Common Prayer a hymn or song in praise of 
Almighty Gop should be sung in the best melody 
that could be conveniently devised. Could she have 


1 Joshua xxiv. 15. 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 137 


foreseen that under the shield of her royal sanction, 
the barbarous strains of Sternhold and Hopkins 
would thrust out even the “Te Deum” and “ Magni- 
ficat,’” she would have hesitated to pen such an 
injunction. 

The second direction was to insure becoming 
reverence in the outward gesture of the worshipper: — 
and she embodied a general principle in the following 
orders! which dealt with a familiar case: “That 
whensoever the Name of Jesus should be pronounced 
in any lesson, sermon or otherwise in the Church, 
due reverence should be made of all persons young 
and old, with lowliness of courtesy, and uncovering of 


1Carpw. Docum. Ann. ii. 176. 

The habit of showing reverence to the Name of Jesus, popularly 
supposed to have originated in the declaration of St. Paul ‘‘that 
at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow,” had a more probable 
origin in the desire of the early Christians to exalt that which the 
Jews attempted to dishonour. The Name Jesus in particular was 
commonly regarded after the Crucifixion as a title of reproach, 
and such contemptuous designations as Jesus, the magician, Jesus, 
the impostor, Jesus, the Galilean impostor, were freely used. 
Again, the usual form of renunciation of Christianity was Anathema 
Jesus. By way of reparation, therefore, the Christians marked 
the same title out for the reception of especial honour. 

At a Council held at Lyons in 1274 a.D. it was ordered that 
‘*whenever this glorious Name should be mentioned, especially 
when the sacred Mysteries were being celebrated, every one 
individually fulfilling himself that which is written, viz. ‘at the 
Name,’ etc., do bow the knees of his heart and testify that he does 
so by at least bowing the head.” In 1604 a.D. the custom was ~= 
indorsed in Canon xviii. 

Cf. BincHaM, vol. x. lib. iv. c. 8, 


Anglican 
worship 
fully 
restored. 


138 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


the head of the men kind, as thereunto did necessarily 
belong and heretofore hath been accustomed.” 

It shocks our ideas of reverence to hear of men 
having their heads covered in a consecrated building, 
but the practice was general at this time. Whether 
it was confined to the hearing of the sermon only, 
or extended to the whole service, is doubtful. The 
well-known picture in the Palace of Ely, repre- 
senting the funeral of Bishop Cox, exhibits the 
whole congregation wearing their hats within the 
choir. ; 

And with the Act of Uniformity, passed April 
28, 1559 A.D., and the Injunctiops which followed, 
the Anglican Reformed worship, with the Ritual of 
Edward’s earl Ryears, was in the main re-established. 

The priests, according to the service in which 
they were engaged, were free to wear the 
Edwardian vestments: outward reverence for holy 
things and places and for the Sacred Name was 
revived: and music, wherever it could be had, lent 
added beauty to the service of Gop’s House. And, 
what was of no little importance, the Queen herself, 
by whose happy efforts these results had been mainly 
attained, was careful to set before her subjects a 
fitting pattern of the worship which she desired to 
be offered throughout her dominions. The Royal 


_ 


Beet. 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 139 


Chapel was a model to all Churches, in furniture 
and ornaments, as well as in the frequency and 
the reverential conduct of its services. 

But how far was the copy imitated? In proof that Accepted 
in many places it was done with no little success, we ee 
may appeal to the fact that multitudes of Roman i 
Catholics, to whom the absence of Ritual would have 
been intolerable, were, if not satisfied, yet at least 
able to worship in our Churches. The Queen! writing 
some years after testifies to this: many of the no- 
bility, who still remained true to Papal allegiance, 
she says, “did ordinarily resort in all open places 
to Divine Services in the Churches without contra- 
diction or show of misliking.” 

And if the higher classes did deliberately accept the 
Reformed worship, the common people very probably 
did the same unconsciously. It is almost certain 
that in many parishes the transition was practically The 


5 h s 
unobserved by the congregation. The altars were not felt 


vested very much as under the Marian rule, the Bt Saale 


1 “ As well those restrained, as generally all the papists in this 
kingdom, not any of them did refuse to come to our church and 
yield their formal obedience to the laws established. And thus 
they all continued during the first ten years of Her Majesty’s 
government.” Sir Edw. Coke’s Charge at Norwich, Lond. 1607, 
fol. 12. For the Queen’s assertion cf. Letter to Sir Francis Wal- 
singham, dated August 11, 1570 a.D. WoRrpDswortH’s Eccles, 
Biogr. iii. 317. CouLiEr, vi. 265. 


Opposition 
at length 
aroused. 


140 The Etizabethan Reaction. 


“ornaments of the minister,” which the Elizabethan 
Revision enjoined, were not so divergent from the 
Roman as to strike the eye, while the gestures, the 
manner of the officiant priests, the intonation of the 
voice, all would in the nature of things remain the 
same, for no direction was given for change in any 
of these points. The real change was effected in 
the substance and doctrine of the Liturgy, but as it 
had been recited for six years in Latin, which was 
quite unintelligible to the masses, it is highly 
improbable that they would recognise the modifi- 
cations. The only alteration which they would be 
certain to realise, they must have hailed with 
satisfaction and delight, viz., the substitution of the 
tongue which they spoke themselves, in place of 
one which, from their utter inability to comprehend 
it, had made their worship a cold and lifeless 
formality. 

But it would have been far too much to expect 
that such acquiescence would be universal. In 
places opposition would be stirred up and fostered 
by the priests, who hated the Reformation, and out- 
breaks of rebellion, for the restoration of the Roman 
Faith and worship, were by no means infrequent. 
That which assumed perhaps the most dangerous 
proportions was headed by the Earls of Northumber- 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 141 


land and Westmorland,! “the hereditary leaders of 
the North,” we may add also “ the hereditary chiefs 
of English Revolution.” It reached its height in 
Durham, when they strode defiantly into the 
Cathedral with a crowd of followers armed to the 
teeth, headed by a massive Crucifix, and the old 
banner of the Pilgrimage on which the five Sacred 
Wounds were emblazoned. They tore the English 
Bible and Prayer-book to pieces: set up the ancient 
altar, replaced the holy water vessel, and then, as the 
historian relates, “amidst tears, embraces, prayers, and 
thanksgivings, the organ pealed out, the candles and 
torches were lighted, and the mass was said once more 
in the long desecrated aisles.”* Thisrebellion however, 
like the rest, was crushed, and the Roman worship 
driven out. Then came the Papal Bull? of Excom- 
munication against the Queen, and no Romanist 

1 Percy and Neville. They were aided chiefly by one Nicholas 
Morton, whom the Pope had sent over with instructions to declare 
the Queen a heretic. The insurrection was not popular, and the 
most the leaders could number at any time was six hundred horse, 
and four thousand foot. When active measures were taken to 
repress it, the two earls fled to Scotland, and from thence the 
Earl of Westmorland escaped to Flanders; but Percy was taken 
prisoner and beheaded at York. 

2 FROUDE, ix. 515. Stow’s Ann. pp. 663, sq. 

3 Issued by Pope Pius v. 1569 a.p. This Bull is usually called 
“‘reonans in excelsis.” Cf. COLLIER, vi. 471. It marks definitely 


the time when the profession of Roman Catholicism in England 
became a schismatic act. 


Causes con- 
tributing 
to the 
advance 

of the 
Puritans. 


142 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


: 
was suffered any longer to worship in the English 
Church. 

But there was a party in England from whom the 
Elizabethan Reforms had more to fear than from any 
threatened rebellion of discontented Papists. 

The Puritans had come in like a flood, and Acts 
and Injunctions and Royal proclamations proved 
powerless to stay their advance. Multitudes of 
important posts in the Church suddenly fell vacant. 
There had been an unprecedented mortality among 
the Bishops ; the Plague had entered their Palaces, 
and no less than nine had died, as Fuller puts it, to 
form “the death-guard” of Queen Mary. ‘The rest, 
with a single exception,” refused either the oath of 
Supremacy or the Act of Uniformity, and were de- 
prived. And not only those in the highest office, but 
many Deans, and Archdeacons, and other dignitaries 
shared a similar fate. And what followed? Their 
places were far from being adequately filled. In 
the dearth of competent men of Catholic views, 
there was no alternative but to draw from the 
Protestant ranks. Men were appointed with strong 


1 A contagious fever raged for several months, and carried off, 
besides the prelates above spoken of, ‘‘so many priests that a 
great number of parish-churches in divers places were unseryed, 
and no curates could be gotten for money.” HEYLIN, ii. 222. 

2 Anthony Kitchen, of Llandaff; cf. FuLLER’s Ch. Hist. ix. 450. 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 143 


Puritan tendencies, not only satisfied with a meagre 
ritual, but pledged in principle to encourage it. 
Bishops like Scambler at Lincoln, Pilkington at 
Durham, Sandys at Worcester, and even Grindal in 
London, made no show even of enforcing the Act, 
but lent all the aid of their countenance to noncon- 
forming clergy, till in many parts almost every 
feature of Catholic worship was obliterated.1 


And then there was another cause contributing The 


largely to the same untoward result, for which the 
Queen herself must be held responsible, we mean the 
impoverishment of the Church. 

There is a noble protest among Whitgift’s 
Letters, which must be remembered to his honour : 


1Cf. FuLLER’s Ch. Hist. ix. p. 480. Harpw. Ref. 258. 

2 Wuitcirt’s Works, iii. p. xiii. Hook's Life of Whitgift, v. 
136. It is said that all the Bishoprics of King Henry vmt.’s 
creation were so impoverished that the newly appointed Bishops 
had actually to beg for their livelihood. The revenues of Oxford 
were divided between the Earls of Leicester and Essex. Some 
‘reasons for making a Bishop of Elie” were drawn up by the 
Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, and disclose in the most patent 
manner the real condition of affairs: ‘‘ Your Majestie shall fill 
that Sea which hath been 14 yeares voyde, remove the opinion of 
kepinge a Bishopricke so long in your Majestie’s hands; by placing 
an olde Bishop there it will not (lykely) be long out of your 
Majestie’s hands; the Bishop’s howses of accesse now in great 
Tuyne, will be repayred. . . . Your Majestie hereby shall not 
lose any profitt.” Then follow arguments to show ‘‘how the 
filling of the Sea may be nere as valuable to her Majestie as the 
Sea vacant,” and how the objections of “‘the Clergie-men may 
perchance think your Majestie doth decrease the revenewes of the 


144 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


“Madam,” he writes, “religion is the foundation and 
cement of human societies: and when they that 
serve Gop’s Altar shall be exposed to poverty, then 
religion itself will be exposed to scorn and become 
contemptible ; as you may already observe it to be 
in too many poor vicarages in this nation. And 
therefore as you are by a late Act or Acts of Parlia- 
ment entrusted with a great power to preserve or 
waste the Church’s lands, yet dispose of them, for 
Jesus’ sake, as you have promised to men and vowed 
to Gop, that is, as the donors intended : let neither 
falsehood nor flattery beguile you to do otherwise ; 
but put a stop to Gop’s and the Levite’s portion, I 
beseech you, and to the approaching ruins of the 
Church, as you expect comfort at the last day ; for 
kings must be judged.” 

Many a Bishopric was sequestered. Ely, for ex- 
ample, was vacant for twenty years after the death of 
Cox, and his successor Heton found the estates of the 
See frightfully curtailed. And Elizabeth seized the 
revenues with unblushing rapacity, and appropriated 
Church” may be answered. The impression left on the mind after 
reading this strange document is simply this, that the Keeper of 
the Seal aimed at relieving the Queen of the unpopularity which 
she had gained by her appropriation of the Episcopal revenues, 
without restoring them to their rightful possessors. Cf. BENTHAM’s 


Hist. of Ely Cath. Appendix No, xxxiii, From the Harleian ms. 
No. 6850. 


< 
A 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 145 


them with unaccountable inconsistency, to enrich 
courtiers like Cecil and Leicester, as well as herself. 

The richest endowments were the first to suffer. 
The Cathedrals soon presented an appearance of 
most appalling neglect. The only sign of life among 
the Deans and Canons was the principle of self-inter- 
est, with which the example of the Queen had infected 
them. They suffered the daily services to cease: 
the altars to be stripped: flagons and chalices stood 
on their side-boards; and the copes and vestments 
were slit into gowns and bodices for their wives and 
children. 

In the towns and villages things were but a few 
degrees better. The Parish Priests who conformed 
and retained their benefices, made a struggle to main- 
tain at least the decencies of Ritual, but at last, 
“drawing foul ensample from fair names,” they 
became like the rest. 

The Puritan clergy, to whom even a surplice was 
an abomination, could hardly be expected to check 
the prevailing desecration. 


So early as 1561 A.D. we read in a legal document, oe 
in which there is no probability of exaggeration, of the condition 
deplorable state to which the Chancels were reduced. pleat a 


1 Preamble of the Queen’s Order taken January 22, 1561 a.p. 
CaRDWw. Doc. Ann. i. 289. Parker's Lett. to Lord Selborne, 27. 
K 


146 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


“Jn sundry Churches and Chapels .. . there is 
such negligence and lack of convenient reverence 
used towards the comely keeping and order of the 
said Churches, and specially of the upper part called 
the chancels, that it breedeth no small offence and 
slander to see and consider, on the one part, the 
curiosity and costs bestowed by all sorts of men upon 
their private houses, and, on the other part, the 
unclean or negligent order and spare keeping of the 
house of prayer, by permitting open decay . . . and 
by appointing unmeet and unseemly tables, with 
foul cloths, for the Communion of the Sacraments, 
and generally leaving the place of prayer desolate of 
all cleanliness and of meet ornaments for such a 
place whereby it might be known a place provided 
for Divine service.” 

Much of this deplorable neglect was inherited 
from the close of Edward’s reign. The change of 
Altars into Tables and also of their position in the 
Churches had almost necessitated the disuse of the 
rich vestments in which they had been clothed. 
To replenish his exhausted coffers the King issued a 
Commission with power to seize upon the plate and 
hangings and other furniture and ornaments which, 
it was said, being no longer available for their original 
purpose, would be better appropriated than suffered 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 147 


to fall into decay. The demolition of images too had 
led to a great defacement of Churches and Chapels ; 
and the east wall in many cases, from having been 
a favourite position for sculpture, presented a ruinous 
appearance, while no attempt at restoration had 
been made during the Marian rule. This state of 
neglect, which the Romans, with all their love of 
the externals of religion, had done nothing to correct, 
was aggravated by the carelessness of the Elizabethan 
clergy, and the Preamble of the Queen’s “Order” 
to her Commissioners is a terrible revelation. Her 
Injunctions were issued not merely to stay further The object 
desecration but to recover what was lost. In de- fencioae 
stroying the Roods, the Screens on which they were 
placed had been ruthlessly thrown down and cleared 
away: but while acceding to the demolition of the 
former, she was determined that the Puritan claim 
to efface the distinction between the Chancel and the 
Nave? should not be acknowledged, and she peremp- 
torily ordered that the partitions should be replaced. 


1 “Orders taken the x. day of October 1561 a.p. By vertue of 
Her Majestie’s letters, ete. ‘Provided also, that where in any 
Parish Churche the sayde Roode loftes be already transposed, so that 
there remayne a comely particion betwixte the Chauncell and the 
Churche, that no alteracion be otherwise attempted in them, but 
be suffered in quiete. And where no particion is standyng, there 
to be one appointed.’” Cf. ParKker’s Lett. to Lord Selborne, 
Postscript, 157 


The Adver- 
tisements. 


148 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


Further to hide the disfigured wall above the Altar, 


she directed that the Table of the Decalogue should 


be set up. In Cathedrals, “the exemplary Churches,”? 
they were to be embellished with “costly painting,” 
but in Parish Churches where poverty was sure to 
be pleaded, printed copies pasted upon board were 
sanctioned. We could hardly have a more forcible 
and telling description than is given by the fact that 
what bore no more traces of beauty than a modern 
“School Board Time Table” should have been 
accounted as a “comely ornament,” calculated to 
recover something of the reverence in which the 


Chancel had once been held. But the Injunctions - 


failed to stay the progress of decay, and the Worship 
of Gop and everything connected with it fell into 
contempt. Even Convocation shared the indifference 
of the times, and a proposal to abolish some of the 
simplest ceremonies” was only rejected by fifty-nine 
to fifty-eight votes. Then came the Advertisements, 
1566 A.D. They were an honest attempt of the Arch- 


1 The Commissioners issued their orders in these terms: “‘ And 
further that there be fixed upon the wall over the sayde Communion 
borde the Tables of Gop’s Precepts imprinted for the sayde 
purpose.” 

‘Provided yet that in Cathedral Churches the Tables of the 
sayde Precepts be more largely and costly painted out to the better 
show of the same.” Cf. PARKER’s Papers on Ornam. Rubr. No. x. 

2 The chief of the proposals was to abolish Saints’ Days, the 
cross in Baptism, organs in Churches, and the practice of kneeling. 


The Elizabethan Reaction. 149 


bishop to enforce the laws which were everywhere 
persistently broken. Even the surplice had been 
discarded in the administration of the Holy Com- 
munion, and some received kneeling, some standing, 
some sitting. The superficial reader will be struck 
with the triviality of the points at issue, the use of a 
dress, the sign of the Cross, the outward reverence at 
the Sacred Name; but the discerner of the times 
knows that in the greatest struggles the immediate — 
battle is often fought over apparent trifles, and sees 
here that the conflict was in reality between antiquity 
and novelty, between the voice of the Church and 
private judgment, between Catholic truth and 
sectarian error. 

The result of the first attempt to enforce Uni- 
formity proves how necessary an appeal to force had 
become. When the London clergy were summoned The 
before the Primate and the Bishop of London, no Clee 
less than thirty-seven out of ninety-eight, more than 
one-third, refused compliance, and their livings were 
sequestrated. 

Of the Universities, the natural feeders of the 'The state 
Ministry, Oxford, after the suppression of the Roman eee 
influence, to which it yielded itself up in Queen 
Mary’s reign, became “ Calvinistic in the extreme.” 
Sampson, Dean of Christ Church, and Humphrys, 


150 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


the President of Magdalene, came back from exile, 
and soon succeeded in creating a reaction. ‘Their 
party was reinforced shortly after by the institution 
of a new Divinity Professorship, to which the 
Secretary of State appointed Dr. Rainolds, “a 
learned and rigorous Puritan.” 

Cambridge too, though traditionally less liable 
to fluctuations than the sister University, passed 
rapidly from Roman under Puritan influence, and 
fanatical preachers excited the undergraduates to 
rise in rebellion against the operation of the Act 
for Uniformity of worship. Many of the Heads of 
Houses took an active part in the “ Vestiarian © 
controversy,” and gained the nickname of “cap and 
surplice fanatics.”? Others vented their Protestant 
spleen in stripping their Chapels of every vestige of 
beauty and ornament, and many fine paintings and 
stained glass windows fell victims to their icono- 
clastic zeal. Then came the libellous acts of Martin 
Mar-prelate,? which fostered the spirit of insubordin- 


1 Cf. MoztEy’s Lssays, Archbp, Laud, i. 112. 

2 Fanatici superpelliceani et galeriani. This was the designa- 
tion by which Bartholomew Clerk, a Doctor of Laws, who took a 
strong part in the Controversy, characterised the Nonconformists, 
CouLuieER, vi. 421. 

3 This was a violent attack upon the organisation and ritual of 
the Church. A series of scurrilous libels were published in 1588 
A.D., anonymously assailing the Queen and Bishops with every kind 
of abuse. Cf. MasKELL’s History of the Controversy. 


The Elizabethan Reaction. I51 


ation to the last degree, and the evil genius of the 
University, Thomas Cartwright, appeared to add to 
the confusion.1 It would be impossible to name 
any one who did more to impregnate that generation 
with an uncatholic system of Theology, and to stereo- 
type in the Schools of the clergy principles which 
aimed at divesting the Worship of the Church of all 
that was attractive and beautiful. His Lecture- 
room was thronge by admiring students, and his 
sermons were so popular that “the very windows 
were taken out of Great St. Mary’s Church that the 
multitudes might come within reach of his voice.” 

But amidst so much that was sad and discouraging 
there was a gleam of sunshine: and it must have 
gladdened the heart of the Queen before she died 
with at least the prospect of a brighter future for 
the Church which she loved. 

The Protestant invasion had stifled the “new 
learning ” which was born when the century began. 
It breathed again in the immortal pages of Hooker 
when the century closed. 

The Puritan rested the authority for the doctrines 
and worship of the Church upon the narrow ground 
of express Scripture direction. Nothing whatever, 


1 Hook considers him to have been the first organiser of Protes- 
tant Dissent in England: Life of Parker, 406. 


The evil 


influence of 


Cartwright. 


The oppor- 
tuneness of 
Hooker’s 
writings. 


152 The Elizabethan Reaction. 


he said, in faith or practice may claim our accept- 
ance, or has even any right to receive it, unless it is 
clearly laid down in Gop’s written Word. Hooker! 
showed that this narrow ground must be abandoned, 
and that “a divine order exists, not in written revela- 
tion only, but in the moral relations, the historical 
development, and the social and political institu- 
tions of men,” and he claimed for human reason the 
province of determining the laws of this order. 
“The Ecclesiastical Polity” was exactly what was 
wanted in the crisis, and though the impression 


which it made was not immediately felt, it was deep | 


and lasting. 

It informed the minds of men like Overall, and 
Andrewes, and Laud, and Cosin, and a great host of 
others who drew from its pages the spirit which 
gave them courage to meet the onslaught of the 
Commonwealth, and enabled them to raise the 
Church from her temporary overthrow, and place 
her securely in that position from which every effort 
has been powerless to dislodge her, 


1 Of. GREEN’s Hist. of the English People, iii. 80. 


CHAPTER IV. 


Che Caroline Settlement. 


HE Parish Churches of England experienced a 
second revolution in their worship at the 
beginning of the Long Parliament: but of a very 
different nature from that which ensued upon the 
accession of Queen Mary. 

The bitter hostility to the Rites and Ceremonies 
of the Church which had been gathering for many 
years culminated in 1645 A.D., when a vote of the 
House established the Directory “for the public 
worship of Gop in the three kingdoms,”! and pro- 
scribed by fine and imprisonment the use of the 
Prayer-book, not only in Divine Service in Churches, 
but even in private dwellings, 


Henceforward the attachment of devout Church- 45... feet- 
men to the forbidden Liturgy became greatly } fee bea 
strengthened, and was regarded “with a degree of seripion of 
veneration such as is felt for a saint who has suffered sa 


1 On the very day of Laud’s attainder, Jan. 6th, 1645, £5 for 
the first offence; £10 for the second; a year’s imprisonment 
without bail or mainprise for the third. CoLLIER, viii. 296. 

For an account of the Directory, cf. Appendix v. 

153 


154 The Caroline Settlement. 
martyrdom.” Men were courageous enough to 
brave the consequences for the sake of that they 
loved, and in secret chambers met from time to time 
to worship GoD according to the old ceremonies and 
the prayers of their fathers. 

We know of hardly anything sadder than the few 
scattered notices in Evelyn’s Diary.1 These are 
examples. 

Advent Sunday :—“ There being no Office at the 
Church, but extemporary prayers after the Presby- 
terian way, for now all forms were prohibited and 
most of the preachers were usurpers, I seldom went 
to Church upon solemn feasts, but either went to 
London, where some of the orthodox sequestered 
Divines did privately use the Common Prayer; .. . 
or else I procured one to officiate in my house . . . 
on the 10th, Dr. Richard Owen, the sequestered 
minister of Eltham, preached to my family in my 
Library, and gave us the Holy Communion.” 

Again he writes, “People had no principles, and 
grew very ignorant of even the common points of 
Christianity : all devotion being now placed in hear- 
ing sermons and discourses of speculative and 


notional things.” 

1 They are found under the following dates :—Dec. 3,1654a.D., — 
Sept. 19, 1655 a.p., Aug. 3, 1656 a.p., Dec. 25, 1657 a.D., May 
23, 1658 a.D. 


The Caroline Settlement. 155 


And in one of his entries for Christmas Day, 
several of which strike the same note of sadness, he 
tells how with some devout worshippers, he was 
surprised in Exeter Chapel in the Strand by a troop 
of soldiers, who held their muskets against them 
as if they would have shot them at the altar, and 
kept them in confinement. 

And there is one more notice in the same journal 
which bears melancholy evidence to the condition 
of the Parish Churches: they “were filled with 
sectaries of all sorts, blasphemous and ignorant 
mechanics usurping the pulpits everywhere.” 

And he sums up all in one pregnant line: “The 
Church now in dens and caves of the earth.” 

And in corroboration of all this we might point ated 
to the lamentation of Chancellor Hyde, where he Leb 
bemoans the fact that Papists and Puritans were Church. 
both computing in how few years the enfeebled 
Church of England would expire But the Provi- 
dence of God defeated their expectations. The 
death of the Protector and the deposition of his 
weak and irresolute son revived the hopes of the 
oppressed. The re-establishment of the Church was 
inseparable from the restoration of the Monarchy ; 


1 Cf. SroucHToNn’s Church of the Restoration, i. 37, where he 
quotes from Barwick’s Life, 449. 


Loyal 
deputation 
to the King 
in Holland. 


His mani- 
festo. 


156 The Caroline Settlement. 


but it was for some time a matter of anxious doubt 
whether her worship should be brought back in its 
integrity, or only when shorn of most of its ancient 
glory. 

The Lords and Commons and the City of London 
sent a deputation to the King, who had taken up his 
abode in Holland, during his exile, to convey to his 
Majesty expressions of loyalty. Eight Presbyterian 
Divines! seized the opportunity for enlisting ‘his 
sympathy, and succeeded in drawing from him the 
famous Breda Declaration,? to which they clung so 
pertinaciously but so hopelessly through all their 
after troubles. He assured them that in consequence 
of the passion and uncharitableness of the times 
having produced diversity in religious opinions, by 
which men had become engaged in parties and 


1 The most important were Reynolds, Calamy, Manton, and 
Case. 

2 As this played an important part in the history of the reign, 
we quote that part of it which concerns the Dissenters in full: 
*‘Because the passions and uncharitableness of the times have 
produced several opinions in religion, by which men are engaged 
in parties and animosities against each other; which, when they 
shall hereafter unite in a freedom of conversation, will be com- 
posed or better understood; we do declare a liberty to tender 
consciences, and that no man shall be disquieted or called in 
question, for differences of opinion in matters of religion, which 
do not disturb the peace of the kingdom ; and that we shall be 
ready to consent to such an Act of Parliament as upon mature 
deliberation, shall be offered to us, for the full granting that 
indulgence.” 


eo a 


animosities against each other, he would grant 
“liberty to tender consciences.” There was some 
reserve in his promise which they did not examine 
very closely, viz., provided such differences did not 
interfere with the peace of the kingdom, and that 
Parliament were ready to sanction the indulgence. 

There is no doubt however that his manner was 
conciliatory, perhaps more so than he intended, for 
emboldened by their reception, they pushed on at a 
later interview to extract a promise that neither the 
old Liturgy nor the abhorred surplice should be 
reintroduced even in his own chapel for fear of 
giving offence to their brethren. He replied with 
no little indignation, “that since he gave them their 
liberty, he should by no means resign his own; that 
he had always used that form of service, which he 
considered to be the best in the world, and he would 
have no other,” and touching the minister’s habit 
while officiating, he told them that it had been — 
retained by him under more difficult circumstances 
and would certainly not be discountenanced now. 

On the 26th of May 1660 a.D., Charles reached The return 
the English shores, and the following day the joyful Shea 
sounds of the disused Liturgy echoed once more 
through the aisles of the metropolitan Cathedral at 


The Caroline Settlement. 157 


Canterbury. 


A second 
manifesto. 


158 The Caroline Settlement. 


Under the date of July 8th, there is a brief 
entry in Evelyn’s Diary, almost as full of hope as the 
last which we quoted from it was of sadness: “ From 
henceforth was the Liturgy publicly used in our — 
Churches, whence it had been for so many years 
banished.” 

In the autumn of the same year, the King issued 
a second Declaration upon Ecclesiastical affairs, It 
was a repetition in the main of the less formal 
promise given at Breda, and conceived in the same 
conciliatory spirit towards Nonconformity. It con- 
tained much which would have curtailed very 
seriously the independent authority of the Episco- 
pate; but this we pass by, as our present object is 
to deal with that part only which concerns the 
Worship of the Church. 

Pending a revision of the Prayer-book, full 
liberty was granted to discontinue the use of it, as 
well as “the ancient ceremony” of bowing at the 
Name of Jesus, and the wearing the surplice, pro- 
vided only that such liberty did not extend to those 
who ministered in Cathedrals and Collegiate 
Churches. 

Probably the King felt confident of the ultimate 
result, when the projected Council of Divines should 
have held their debates, and so was anxious t¢ 


The Caroline Settlement. 159 


make temporary concessions, to avoid being charged 
with a breach of faith, and to save himself from 
alienating a large portion of his subjects at the 
outset of his reign. 

Each fresh concession, instead of satisfying the The un- 


° c : bl 
Presbyterians, made them wax bolder in_ their ness of the 


demands, till at last they completely overreached es 
themselves, and, as we shall see, in the end lost 
everything by their grasping. 

It is often asserted that they received hard 
measure at the hands of their opponents; if it be 
true, it must be attributed in a great measure to their 
own disregard of the feelings and interests of others. 

The Church too was then rising after a long and 
severe depression, and it was only natural that as she 
found herself secure of the recovery of her ancient 
prerogatives, some of her ministers should feel but 
little sympathy for the alleged grievances of those, 
by whom in the hour of their triumph they had 
been so ruthlessly treated. Still further, it must be 
remembered that the differences were religious and 
doctrinal, and it was not a time for orthodoxy to 
yield even an inch to the demands of men whose 
teaching the Apostolic Church distinctly repudiated. 

It was not till the spring of the following year 
that the King was able to carry out his intention of 


The pro- 
posals for a 
Conference, 


160 The Caroline Settlement. 


bringing matters to a final issue between the con 
tending parties. Steps were then taken for sub- 
mitting the vexed questions of Liturgical worship 
and ceremonial observance to the decision of a 
formally constituted assembly of Divines selected in 
equal numbers from either side. No pressure of 
any kind was exercised in the selection, but each 
party was left free to name its own Commissioners. 
Twelve Bishops and twelve Presbyterian ministers 
with nine coadjutors on either side formed the 
deliberative Council from which so much was ex- 
pected, so little realised. 

Twice before the disputant parties had been 
arranged on opposite benches, once at Hampton 
Court,! once at Westminster.? At all three meetings 
the subjects of debate were practically identical, 
but the circumstances under which they were 
debated, most widely different. 

When King James, in reply to the Millenary 


1 For a full account, cf. Appendix mz. Archbishop Whitgift, 
Bishops Bancroft, Matthew, Bilson, and Deans Andrewes, Overall, 
and Barlow were the chief on the Catholic side. The Puritans 
were represented by Reynolds, Sparks, Knewstub, and Chaderton. 

2 The Knights of the Shires named two or more representatives 
from each county. They numbered 120, of whom all but a very 
few were avowed enemies of the Church. They met first on July 
1st, 1643 a.D., 69 members answering their names, The Prelates 
who accepted the invitation in the first instances soon discon- 
tinued their attendance, 


The Caroline Settlement. 16f 


Petition, summoned a conference in 1604 A.D. to 
consider the Presbyterian grievances, the Episco- 
palians were in undisturbed power; and they took 
their seats under the Presidency of the King, who, 
they were secretly convinced, was strongly averse to 
any concession, as Ecclesiastical Commissioners ap- 
pointed to adjudicate rather than to debate on terms 
of equality. The aggrieved party moreover were 
placed at a manifest disadvantage in point of 
numbers, having no more than four to confront an 
array of nine Bishops, seven Deans, and three others, 

And there was the same inequality at West- 
minster, 1643 A.D., but then the tables were 
reversed, the Presbyterians appearing in an over- 
whelming majority, outnumbering the representa- 
tives of the Church in the proportion of twelve to 
one, or even more. 

On the present occasion the champions of the 
two rival systems met face to face, equal in numbers, 
and not altogether unequal in intellectual power 
and learning ; and as far as human judgment could 
foresee, there was every prospect of a fair trial of 
strength, and a full and unprejudiced consideration 
upon their merits of the questions to be debated. 

That these anticipations were not fulfilled was 
due far more to the unwisdom and unyielding 

oF 


The meet- 
ing in the 
Savoy. 


The repre- 
sentation 

of the Epi- 
scopalians. 


Sheldon. 


162 The Caroline Settlement. 


spirit of men like Baxter than to any other assign- 
able cause. 

The place of meeting by the Royal Proclama- 
tion was the Palace of the Savoy. It was a spot 
rich in historic memories, and worthy of the occa- 
sion. In the noble Hall of the Master’s lodging, 
looking out on the Thames, the Conference met for 
the first time on April 15, 1661 A.D. 

And now let us look at the portraits of the 
representative Divines of that eventful time, for 
such were those who formed that memorable 
Assembly. Inasmuch as, to all outward seeming, 
the gravest issues for the future of the Church were 
likely to flow from its deliberations, we should have 
expected to see the Primate of England occupying 
the Presidential Chair, but Juxon was bowed down 
with the weight of years,—years of such anxiety that 
they would have made a young man prematurely 
old,—and he pleaded the infirmity of age as an 
excuse, deputing Sheldon, the Bishop of London, 

1 Churchmen: Frewen, Sheldon, Cosin, King, Warner, 
Sanderson, Morley, Henchman, Laney, Sterne, Walton, and 
Gauden, with coadjutors, Earles, Heylin, Barwick, Gunning, 
Hacket, Pearson, Pierce, Sparrow, and Thorndike, 

Presbyterians: Reynolds, Baxter, Tuckney, Wallis, Manton, 
Conant, Spurstow, Calamy, Jackson, Case, Newcomen and Clark, 


with coadjutors, Jacomb, Bates, Horton, Rawlinson, Lightfoot, 
Collins, Cooper, Drake, and Woodbridge, 


ee ee 


The Caroline Settlement. 163 


and by a happy coincidence also Master of the 
Savoy, to fill his place. His character has been 
severely criticised by Nonconformist historians, but 
he was far from deserving the wholesale condemna- 
tion which they have dealt outto him. We may find 
it difficult to maintain that the Episcopate suffered 
no loss in its sacred dignity from his public conduct, 
or that his spirituality and piety in private life were 
such as beseems a Father in Gop, but it cannot 
be denied that he possessed many of the qualifica- 
tions which fitted him for a post, in which he was 
called upon to control the discussions of men of 
such widely different opinions. He had mixed 
much with the world, and acquired in society a 
wonderful aptitude for discerning character: and 
with this shrewd discrimination and quickness 
of apprehension, he combined great courtesy in 
manner and gentleness of speech. 

He had the good fortune to be supported by 
Bishops and Divines, fully competent to maintain 
the honour and rights of the Church, men whose 
names have become familiar as household words 
in the world of KEcclesiastical Literature and 
debate. 

Foremost in importance, not perhaps from every 
point of view, but unquestionably in connection 


Cosin, 


164 The Caroline Settlement. 


with the subjects to be discussed, was Cosin, 
Bishop of Durham. He was almost without a 
rival in any age for acquaintance with Liturgical 
lore, the decrees of Councils, and Patristic teaching. 
In his early days he had sat at the feet of Andrewes 
and Overall) and afterwards, when Chaplain to 
the Bishop of the See to which he succeeded, he 
drank in the opinions of Laud and other like- 
minded Divines, for Durham house in London was 
the centre of high Ecclesiastical society. 

It was here that he gathered many of the 
“Notes,” which were destined to play such an 
important part in the final settlement of Anglican 
worship. From the first he was exposed to obloquy, 
and for his efforts to restore the deceney of worship 
in the Cathedral of Durham after his appointment 
to a Canonry, he was publicly delated as “a young 
Apollo who sets out the Quire with strange Baby- 
lonish ornaments,” and for his zeal in reviving a 
fitting ceremonial at the Coronation of Charles 1. 
he was contemptuously designated “ Popish Master 
John.” Unless it could be proved that he changed 
his views, his conduct during his exile at the 
Court of Queen Henrietta Maria is sufficient to 


1 He owed so much to Overall that he used to designate him 
his “lord and master.” He became his librarian in 1616 a.D. 


— 


The Caroline Settlement. 165 


acquit him of any tendency Romewards. When 
brought into contact with the Jesuits, he held 
frequent discussions with them upon doctrinal 
questions, and at last gathered up his arguments 
into a treatise in denunciation of their supreme 
dogma of transubstantiation. But whether the 
charges were wholly unfounded or not, we can hardly 
be surprised that he had made himself hateful to 
the Puritans, or that he should have been selected 
as the first Episcopalian to suffer vengeance by a 
vote of the Commons,? 

Such being his history, such his character, we 
can well imagine the dismay which the Presby- 
terians must have felt when they saw him taking 
his place in the ranks of their opponents at the 
Savoy. From him at least they could expect no 
concession ; and though it was by no means ina 
spirit of retaliation, for he was of a most generous 
temper and the strictest sense of rectitude and 
justice, he did not disappoint them, but stood firm 
and unbending to the principles for which he had 
suffered. 

For the active part that he took in the proceed- 


ings, Morley, Bishop of Worcester, deserves to be Morley. 


1 He was impeached before the House of Lords 1641 a.p., and 
fied to Paris. 


Sanderson. 


166 The Caroline Settlement. 


noticed next. He had followed the fortunes of 
the King throughout the war, and had shared his 
banishment, and for his devotion to the Royal 
cause was selected as the fittest person to preach 
the Coronation sermon in Westminster Abbey. 

He was a most brilliant speaker, quick in reply, 
and of ever ready wit, but unfortunately of such a 
hasty temper that he often spoke w‘thout weighing 
his words considerately. It is said too that he 
was so impulsive that he manife ted the greatest 
impatience of a sustained argument, and frequently 
interrupted a speaker from whom he disagreed. 
These failings materially damaged his influence and 
weakened the force of those qualities which should 
have made him the most formidable member of the 
Conference. As it turned out, others were more 
feared: by the Presbyterians, but no one was 
more obnoxious to them: indeed they disliked him 
more than all the rest of his party together. 

Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, had qualifications, 
which placed him from time to time in the Presi- 
dent’s seat in the absence of Sheldon. He was a 
staunch upholder of the rights and prerogatives of 
the Church. When forbidden by the Common- 
wealth to read the Book of Common Prayer, he 
committed its pages to heart, and habitually repeated 


The Caroline Settlement. 167 


them from memory all through the times of the 
proscription. His reputation as a Casuist is such 
that his works on the Conscience are studied in the 
present generation. 

As a writer of English, he was almost unapproach- 
able for the purity of his language, as the most 
familiar though by no means the best example of 
which, we may read the Preface to the Prayer-book 
which came from his pen. 

He was especially disliked by the Presbyterians 
for the scathing severity with which he criticised 
the Solemn League and Covenant. 

The portrait gallery of the Churchmen would 
be grievously deficient, if Pearson and Gunning were 
wanting, though they only acted as Coadjutors. 

The former, as the Theologian of the Conference, Pearson. 
rises above all his fellows. The solidity of his 
learning and the cogency of his argumentative 
skill earned for him a reputation which the lapse 
of two centuries has hardly deteriorated. 

In Catholic doctrine, it is true, he took lower 
ground than Cosin or Gunning, but the extraordin- 
ary abilities which he possessed commanded the 
respect of his opponents, though they contributed 
not a little to their discomfiture. 

The latter, Gunning, deserves a fuller notice. He Gunning. 


168 The Caroline Settlement. 


was a scholar of no mean attainments, and being 
possessed of an unusually retentive memory and 
readiness of speech, was able to enforce his argu- 
ments by telling illustrations drawn from history 
and a wide experience. Among the uneducated, 
however, this fertility of allusion made him obscure 
and difficult ; and Charles 1. is said to have ridi- 
culed the Court ladies for their admiration of his 
preaching, which he explained on the principle 
“omne ignotum pro magnifico.” 

His views on Ecclesiastical questions were tho- 
roughly Catholic; the Presbyterians stigmatised 
them as Roman, but they had been much irritated 
against him by his refusal to administer the Sacra- 
ment to Prynne, when he obstinately declined to 
kneel for its reception. 

As a polemic he loved discussion, and was in 
many ways the counterpart of Morley, with the 
same ready wit and quick reply. He differed, how- 
ever, in that he combined great courtesy and good- 
ness, with the utmost gravity and dignified control 
over his temper. 

It is recorded as an instance of his readiness that 
once he engaged in argument with an enthusiast 
whom he happened to hear declaiming on the 
immediate nearness of the Advent in the presence 


The Caroline Settlement. 169 


of a great crowd who were completely carried away 
with his words. Gunning, after trying in vain to 
turn them from their convictions by Scriptural argu- 
ments, seized upon an observation casually dropped 
to the effect that his opponent had lately invested 
in an estate, and offered him two years’ purchase for 
the transfer. Taken off his guard, the man de- 
manded twenty as its real value, and his converts 
left him. 

As a writer, he has left his mark upon our Service- 
book in the beautiful prayer for “all conditions of 
men.”! 

We think no one can look at his monument in Ely 
Cathedral without being impressed with the majesty 
of his bearing, and the strength of character exhibited 
in his face, or stand upon the huge stone engraved 
with the pregnant title “‘ Petrus Episcopus Eliensis,” 
without feeling a profound sense of gratitude to him, 


1 Gunning is supposed to have yielded to the objections of the 
Presbyterians, and gathered into one the substance of several 
prayers for the king, clergy, and others, originally used at the 
close of the Litany. In favour of this view Wheatley has quoted 
the tradition that in St. John’s College Chapel, Cambridge, of 
which Gunning was master, this was never read at Evensong, 
because its composer had intended it to take the place of prayers 
which had been associated with the Litany, and belonged naturally 
to a morning service. The occurrence of the word “finally,” when 
so little has preceded, suggests the idea that other petitions may 
have fallen out. There is no authority for the common belief 
that Bishop Sanderson was the composer of it. 


Reynolds. 


170 The Caroline Settlement. 


as he recalls his history as of one of the saviours 
of the Church in her most troublous time. 

We turn now to those who represented the 
opposite party. By far the majority of them were 
men of distinction: a few stand out from the rest 
with names which would command the admiration 
of any generation in history: and at these we look 
more closely. 

The first, however, that attracts our attention is 
Reynolds, whose position as a Bishop is not a little 
remarkable. 

To sit as a Commissioner on the same bench with 
men who were ready to burn the Prayer-book, and 
to take his place in Convocation, which was almost 
sworn to defend it, is an anomaly almost without 
parailel. It makes us suspect his integrity, and is 
indicative of no little instability of mind and pur- 
pose. Though the Presbyterians were glad to avail 
themselves of his advocacy, he completely lost their 
confidence, when in later days he elected to retain 
his Bishopric and conform, while those in whose 
ranks he had stood, and who had looked to him for 
guidance, had the courage of their opinions, and 
were ejected. But whatever judgment we may pass 
upon him for his inconsistency, he has left a mark 
upon the Prayer-book, which the strongest Episco- 


oa ald 


The Caroline Settlement. 171 


palian can have no wish to efface, as the author of 
“the General Thanksgiving.”? 

The moving controlling spirit of their party was Richard 
Richard Baxter. One act of his, to be considered ee 
hereafter, will enable us to form a correct estimate 
of his character better than the most lengthy de- 
scription. But we may sum up his faults by saying 
that be was far too self-reliant, seeing only with his 
own eyes and wholly incapable of understanding the 
position of an opponent: and his good qualities, by 
pronouncing him absolutely without an equal in 
guilelessness and personal piety. 

Though his work in the Conference was in its 
spirit subversive of all that every loyal Churchman 
holds most dear, he has won our affections and healed 
many a wounded heart by the touch of his “ Saints’ 
Everlasting Rest.” 

Calamy gained great renown as a preacher, and Calamy. 
had a larger following of distinguished persons than 
any minister in the seventeenth century. He was 
profoundly learned and conversant with writings not 
usually studied by men of his views, having read 

1 This also has been assigned to Bishop Sanderson; but from 
the Records of Convocation it appears that Bishop Reynolds 
prepared a ‘‘ Form of general thanksgiving,” and presented it on 


December 14th, 1661 a.p. Latupury’s Hist. of Convoc., 289. 
Kennet’s Register, 579. 


Lightfoot. 


The object 
of the 
Conference. 


172 The Caroline Settlement, 


through (as his Biographers assert, though it can 
only be by a figure of speech) all the works of St. 
Augustine no less than five times, and being equally 
at home in the disquisitions of the Schoolman 
Aquinas. 

Lightfoot, the last to be noticed, was the first of 
English Divines to penetrate deeply into the mys- 
teries of Hebrew Literature, and to lay bare for the 
Christian the secrets of Rabbinic and Talmudic 
Science. Though two hundred years have elapsed 
since he entered upon the then-untrodden field, few, 
if any, have extended their investigations further. 

Such were the men who were called together at 
this crisis to debate and adjust the rival claims 
of the two systems of Church Government and 
Worship. 

The President of the Conference opened the pro- 
ceedings by reciting the instrument under which they 
had been summoned. It enjoined them “ to review 
the Book of Common Prayer, comparing the same 
with the most ancient Liturgies which have been 
used in the Church in the primitive and purest 
times: . . . to advise and consult upon the several 
objections which should be raised against the same, 
and (if occasion be), to make such reasonable and 
necessary alterations as should be agreed upon to be 


The Caroline Settlement. 173 


needful and expedient for the giving satisfaction to 
tender consciences . .. but avoiding (as much as 
may be) all unnecessary abbreviations of the forms 
and liturgy, wherewith the people are altogether 
acquainted and have so long received in the Church 
of England.” 

The presiding Bishop ruled that the summons 
directed them to the consideration of exceptions and 
additions to the Prayer-book, and maintained that 
as the Episcopal party were well-satisfied with the 
Book as it stood, it was obviously the duty of those 
who were aggrieved to set forth their objections and 
to suggest such additional matter as they thought 
fit. He ordered also that, to insure full consideration, 
they should be laid before the Conference in writ- 
ing. The Presbyterians, after many fruitless pro- 
tests against a course which they foresaw would 
fetter the freedom of debate, yielded an unwilling 
assent, and agreed among themselves that the main 
body should undertake to draw up the exceptions, 
and leave to Baxter alone the compilation of the 
additions. 

The former work was speedily accomplished. The 
grievances had been stereotyped for years,! and 


1 A considerable number of them had been embodied in the 
form of petition, which was presented to King James on his 
accession, The petition prayed that these offences following, 


The nature 
of the 
exceptions. 


174 Lhe Caroline Settlement. 


only required to be placed in categorical order and 
expressed in the most trenchant terms. 

Those which related to Church Worship may be 
comprehended briefly under these heads :— 

I. The mode of expressing both prayer and praise. 

II. The ceremonies attendant upon the same. 
III. The restriction of times for public service. 

The first claim put forward was for the omis- 
sion of responses, and the alternative reading of 
Psalms, and for the consolidation of the divided 
petitions of the Litany into one continuous prayer. 

This struck at the root of a very important prin- 
ciple, and though the objectors hardly realised it, it 
would have debarred the laity from the right which 
they possess in virtue of their priesthood! of taking 
a recognised part in the public service. 

Of a somewhat kindred nature was their excep- 
tion to separate Collects, which, usually embodying 


some may be removed, some amended, some qualified: ‘‘In the 
Church Service, that the Cross in baptism, interrogatories 
ministered to infants, confirmations, as superfluous, may be taken 
away, ... the cap and surplice not urged; that examinations 
may go before the Communion; that it be ministered with a 
sermon; that divers terms of priests and absolution and some 
other used, with the ring in marriage, and other such like in the 
book, may be corrected . . . church-songs and music moderated 
to better edification, . . . no ministers charged to teach their 
people to bow at the Name of Jesus ; that the Canonical Scriptures 
only be read in Church.” Carpw. Confer. 132. 
1 Cf. p. 7. 


vy, 


hy eae 
J f z Be 
“ 


‘The Caroline Settlement. 175 


only one brief petition, were unnecessarily encum- 
bered, each with a preface naming the attributes of 
Gop, as well as a conclusion appealing to the merits 
of Christ’s intercession. It would be less interruption, 
they said, to the general flow of prayer to combine 
the subjects of several in one of greater length. 

Another claim under the first head was that the 
Liturgy should not be so strictly imposed as to ex- 
clude the exercise of “the gift of prayer,” and that 
liberty of curtailing the stated forms be granted in 
view of affording opportunity for extempore effusions 
at the minister’s discretion. 

Under the second head they desired the 
abolition of the ornaments of the ministers and 
ceremonial usages, singling out for especial animad- 
version the wearing of the surplice, the sign of the 
Cross, and kneeling at the Holy Communion. 

Under the last, restricting public worship as 
far as possible to Sundays, they took exception to 
the observance of Saints’ Days and Vigils, and 
pleaded for the discontinuance of the title of Holy 
Days by which they had been commonly designated. 

These objections’ were laid before the Assembly 


at their next sitting. Written replies were drawn 


1 The exceptions of the ministers, both general and particular, 
as well as the answers of the Bishops, are printed in full in CarpD- 
WELL’s Conferences, Vii. 


The 
Bishops 
feel their 
strength 
and resist 
concession. 


176 The Caroline Settlement. 


up, followed by rejoinders on the Presbyterian side, 
and time passed on without any advance being made 
towards union or reconciliation. The Bishops be- 
came daily more and more encouraged by a variety 
of circumstances to make a bold stand for the abso- 
lute integrity of their worship; and they assumed a 
more peremptory tone towards their antagonists. 
They were provoked to the last degree by the con- 
duct of Baxter. In defiance of the terms under 
which they had been called together, in total disre- 
gard for antiquity, for the accumulated treasure of 
Liturgical forms, in many of which thirty genera- 
tions had expressed their wants and done homage 
to the Creator, he was bold to substitute for the 
sanction of the Conference a Service-book of his 
own,! whose claim for acceptance he based upon the 
fact that it contained nothing in common with the | 
existing Liturgy, with a Book, that is, which his 


1 There is no doubt that itis a remarkable production, though it 
ill-deserves the high praise given to it by Dr. Johnson, as ‘‘ one of 
the first compositions of a ritual kind that he had ever seen.” It 
contains services for the LorpD’s Day, for Holy Communion and 
Baptism, for marriage, with directions for the visitation of the 
sick, for the burial of the dead; a discourse on preparatory cate- 
chising before Communion, also on Church discipline, with forms 
of confession, absolution and exclusion, special prayers and 
thanksgivings, and an Appendix containing a long Litany o1 
general prayer, and an ascription of praise for man’s redemption. 
Cf. Baxter’s Works, Lond. 1830: vol. xv. p. 449. 


The Caroline Settlement. 177 


opponents next to the Bible held dearest in the 
world. 

The story of its composition, though it fills us 
with wonder, cannot but touch us by the simplicity 
of character which it betokens. He tells in his 
own words how, when the idea of a Reformed 
Liturgy had been conceived, he laid everything 
aside and shut out the world till he had carried the 
work to completion. 

“Hereupon,” he says, “I departed from them 
and came among them no more till I had finished 
my task, which was a fortnight’s time.” While all 
the pomp and circumstance of Religious worship 
was breaking out with fresh vigour after long sup- 
pression, while every Rite and Ceremony which could 
enhance the splendour of the Coronation Service 
was being enacted in Westminster Abbey, a single 
divine in solitude and retirement, with no other help 
than his Bible and Paraphrase, was elaborating page 
by page a book which, in the infatuation of a be- 
clouded judgment, he persuaded himself would be 
acceptable to the nation. And this, the result of 
fourteen brief days’ labour, he did not scruple to 
propose as a substitute for one which had grown 
with the Church’s growth, and rooted itself in the 
heart and affections of the people. 

M 


Baxter's 
Liturgy. 


His work 
indorsed by 
his col- 
leagues, 


A final 
attempt at 
agreement, 


178 The Caroline Settlement. 


The laying on the table of the Committee-room 
of that Reformed Liturgy did almost more than 
anything to wreck the Presbyterian cause. 

It may be said that Baxter was only one, but his 
colleagues fathered his proposal, and so made 
themselves responsible for his act. That the adop- 
tion of a course so ill-timed, so devoid of all 
common sense, so certain to carry destruction with 
it, should have been even possible, is almost past 
belief. It is evidence of no little forbearance in 
the party in power that they did not break up the 
Conference in disgust at the revolutionary spirit 
in which their opponents were prepared to sacrifice 
most hallowed traditions, and at the self-confidence 
which demanded every concession from others, but 
refused to make any in return. 

However, after much written matter had been 
interchanged between them, the Bishops consented 
to a debate on equal terms. Three were chosen 
on either side, Pearson, Gunning, and Sparrow on 
one, Baxter, Jacomb, and Bates on the other. It 
is needless to tell with what result. We know the 
respective characters of the chief disputants, Gun- 
ning and Baxter, and no annalist is required to 
record the issue of a debate between them. 

Before, however, the expiration of the time to 


The Caroline Settlement. 179 


which the Session of the Conference was limited, 
Cosin made a final effort to gather up the threads 


of controversy, by calling upon the complainants to Conte 5 


divide their objections to the Prayer-book, stating detinite 
4 P A proposal. 
what they opposed as sinful, what as inexpedient. 


A subtle argument was carried on for some time, in 
which the Presbyterians attacked the Book as un- 
scriptural, and therefore sinful, in eight particulars, 
but it was as hopeless as the discussions which pre- 
ceded it, and the Conference terminated, Morley 
and Baxter having consented to report to the King 
that they were all agreed as to the ends, viz., the 
unity, peace, and welfare of the Church, but after 
all their debates were disagreed on the means, 
During the sittings or shortly after, several 


events occurred which tended greatly to the re- 


1], That no minister baptize without the transient image of 
the cross. 
2. That no minister may read or pray that dare not wear a 
surplice. 
3. That none be admitted to Communion that dare not receive 
it kneeling. 
4, That ministers be forced to pronounce all baptized infants to 
be regenerate. 

That ministers be forced to deliver the Sacrament to the unfit. 

. Or to absolve the unfit, and that in absolute expressions, 

. Or to give thanks for all whom they bury. 

Or to subscribe the Prayer Book as containing nothing 
contrary to the Word of God. Carpw. Conf. c. vi. 
Cott. vii. 440. 

The charges were unfounded, and the orders of the Church 
wilfully misrepresented. When e.g. does the Church direct the 
ministry to do what 5 and 6 assume that she does? 


OMAN 


180 The Caroline Settlement. 


Divers establishment of the ancient Forms of worship in 
causes con- 

tributing to the Church. 

irae I. The Coronation in Westminster Abbey. 


et II. The burning of the Solemn League and 
Covenant. 
III. The passing by the House of Commons of an 
Act of Uniformity with the restored Prayer-book. 
IV. The introduction of a Bill for the return of 
the Spiritual Lords to their seats in Parliament. 
Let us look at them separately. 
the Core. I. As soon as the Coronation-day (April 22d) 
the Corona- was fixed, the records of the past were ransacked to 
ee furnish precedents for all the details of the solem- 
nity, that nothing in the way of Ecclesiastical pomp 
which had characterised similar occasions might be 
wanting. So strong in the minds of the King’s 
counsellors was the reaction from the studied ab- 
sence of Ceremonial which had marked the Com- 
monwealth, that the Ritual exceeded in splendour 
and magnificence anything that even Westminster 
Abbey with all its tale of Ecclesiastical and Regal 
pageant had ever witnessed. The Presbyterians 
who were present must have heaved a deep sigh as 
they read the unmistakable evidence that Catholic 
worship was on the eve of full restoration, and that 
Episcopacy, which they had dethroned and trampled 
in the dust, would soon lift up its head on every side, 


The Caroline Settlement. 181 


It was an Episcopal ceremony from beginning to 
end. The Archbishop poured the anointing oil. A 
Bishop preached the sermon: a second read the 
Gospel, a third the Epistle. Bishops were foremost 
in the procession, and foremost in the reception of 
Royal favour, chosen to walk at the King’s side 
under a Canopy borne by the Lords temporal, and 
permitted to kiss the King’s cheek before any one 
not of royal blood. 

No matter that Presbyterians had been placed on 
the list of His Majesty’s Chaplains,’ they were 
rigidly excluded from taking any official part in the 
proceedings. 

This was the first direct blow which their cause 
received. 

II. It was followed by a second quickly after. 


The Solemn League and Covenant? pledged the TheSolemz 
League. 

1 The Earl of Manchester, who favoured the Presbyterians, 
obtained the King’s consent to appoint ten of the number to be 
Royal Chaplains. Only four, however, Baxter, Reynolds, Calamy, 
and Spurstow, were ever invited to officiate at Court. 

Reynolds afterwards became Bishop of Norwich. The See of 
Hereford was also offered to Baxter, and that of Lichfield and 
Coventry to Calamy, but both were declined. 

2 The Covenant was subscribed not only by the appointed Com- 
missioners and Assembly of Divines, but also by the members of 
both Houses of Parliament. The King however issued a proclama- 
tion, dated October 9th, forbidding his subjects to accept it. For 
a copy of it, cf. FULLER’s Ch. Hzst. iii. 450 ; SroucHtTon’s Eccles. 

Hist. ii. 535. 


182 The Caroline Settlement. 


Covenanters to uphold in this country the Reformed 
worship and discipline, which had been established 
in Scotland, and to extirpate Prelacy, which was 
said to be linked with superstition and heresy, and 
coutrary to sound doctrine and the power of godli- 
ness. 

It had been accepted by the Assembly of West- 
minster Divines, when with circumstances of an 
unusual significance they had met, Sept. 25, 1643 
A.D., in St. Margaret’s Church under the shadow 
of the Abbey, and in the presence of the House of 
Commons, who adjourned to witness the solemnity, 
they lifted up their hands and swore to maintain 
its provisions. 

It was not enough that it had been set aside 
informally at the King’s restoration; the nation 
must wash its hands from the stain, and the renun- 
ciation be as publicly marked as the acceptance had 
been. The House of Commons resolved that the 
ill-starred document should be destroyed in such a 
manner as to leave no doubt of their utter abhor- 
rence of it. A decree was accordingly passed that 
a copy of it should be burnt by the public hangman 
in Palace Yard at Westminster, and another in the 
most crowded parts of the city, that all might see.+ 

1 At Cheapside, and before the Exchange. 


The Caroline Settlement. 183 


And the journal? of the period describes the 
execution of the sentence: “The hangman did his 
part perfectly well, for having kindled his fire he 
tore the document into many pieces and first burned 
the preface and then cast each part solemnly into 
the flames, lifting up his hands and eyes, and not 
leaving the least shred, but burnt it root and 
branch.” And the scene was reproduced in the 
provinces. At Southampton,” amidst the firing of 
cannon and public rejoicing, the hated scroll was 
plucked from a neighbouring Church, where it had 
been honoured with a stately setting in a conspicu- 
ous position, and thrown into the fire. At Bury 
St. Edmunds an effigy of a notorious criminal, who 
had been hanged, was paraded through the streets 
with a copy of the League fastened under his arm 
and the Directory in his hand, and after being 
subjected to every possible indignity was torn 
piecemeal and destroyed. 

III. The third step towards the re-establishment 
of the old worship was the introduction of a Bill The Act of 
into Parliament to bring back the Book of Common Bea 
Prayer. 

The very day after the King landed on the 


1 Mercurius Publicus, May 30, quoted in Stovanton’s Ch. of 
the Restor. i. 196. 
2 Public Intelligencer, June 6-13, ibid. 


184 The Caroline Settlement. 


English shores, to the unspeakable joy of many who 
heard it, the proscribed Liturgy was read in Can- 
terbury Cathedral, whither he turned aside on his 
journey to give thanks to Gop. Again, in the Houses 
of Parliament the old forms had been revived after 
the silence of well-nigh twenty years, and in many 
Churches where the incumbents sympathised with 
the Restoration the Directory was at once discarded, 
for though the law for its enforcement was not yet 
repealed, they had no misgivings that it might be 
broken with impunity. But the newly elected 
Parliament, Royalist and Episcopalian as they were 
in overwhelming numbers, were impatient to place 
everything connected with the worship of the 
Church in an unassailable position. So long as the 
Directory was sanctioned by the Statute-book, those 
who professed the Presbyterian Faith were free to 
use it without molestation. Such liberty must be 
curtailed without delay. On June 29th “A Bill for 
Uniformity of Public Worship and the administra- 
tion of Sacraments” was introduced in the House 
of Commons. 

Search was made for the original manuscript of 
the Second Prayer-book of Edward VI. to be affixed 
to the Bill; but whether it could not be discovered, 
or whether it was discovered but proved distasteful to 


The Caroline Settlement. 185 


the promoters of the Bill, or from some other un- 
known cause, its intended place was taken by that of 
King James, as amended at Hampton Court. The 
Bill passed its third reading on July 9th, and was 
sent to the Upper House. They, however, deferred 
the consideration of it, both because they wished to 
await the result of the Savoy Conference, and also 
from a feeling that such a question could only be 
discussed at a disadvantage till after the readmission 
into their body of the spiritual Lords. 

IV. And this brings us to the last measure, which 
paved the way so securely and effectively for the 
Caroline Settlement. 

In the first year of the Long Parliament a deter- The 


. : Bishops 
mined effort was made, and again and again renewed, vastored to 
o é c their seats 
to exclude the Bishops from their seats in the jn the 
: : isla- 
Legislature. Hatred of them was stirred up and ese 


fostered by a variety of charges. On one occasion 
they were actually threatened with personal violence 
on their way to the House. They appealed for the 


1 The Prayer-Book of 1604 4.p. differed from its predecessor in the 
following particulars: in the rubric before the form of absolution 
was added ‘‘or remission of sins,” in the rubrics in the office for 
Private Baptism it was directed that the Sacrament should be 
administered only by a ‘lawful minister.” The explanation of 
the Sacraments, by Bishop Overall, was added to the Catechism. 
A prayer for the Royal Family and special thanksgivings for rain, 
fair weather, etc. were added, and certain changes were made in 
the Apocryphal Lessons ; cf. Appendix 111. 


186 The Caroline Settlement. 


protection of the law, and not satisfied with this, 
injudiciously went on to declare that any measure 
passed during their enforced absence would be null 
and void. They were at once impeached for high 
treason, condemned and sent to the Tower, and the 
Bill to deprive them of their privilege was hurried 
forward and passed its third reading within a few 
days, Feb. 5, 1642 A.D. 

This was the history of their exclusion. When 
Charles 11. returned the Bishops’ Bench had been 
vacant for eighteen years. 

The House of Commons voted for the restitution 
of their ancient rights, but strangely enough, owing 
mainly to the hesitation of the King founded on 
some Papist misrepresentations,’ it was Nov. 20th 
before they were able to take their seats. To com- 
memorate the event the King went to the House in 
person, and the junior Bishop? was desired to open 
the sitting with prayer. 

1 The Earl of Bristol persuaded the King that the Bishops, if 
admitted to Parliament, would feel conscientiously bound to oppose 
concessions to the Roman Catholics, which his Majesty was 
desirous to make. Afterwards he was induced by the Chancellor 
to withdraw his opposition, and the Bill was got through, and 
received the Royal assent the very day on which Parliament was 
adjourned, July 30th. 

2 “From this time the junior Bishop in the House commonly 


read the form of prayers before their proceeding to any business.” 
Lats. Convoc. 299. 


eas 


The Caroline Settlement. 187 


The combination of forces was now complete, and 
the total discomfiture of the Presbyterian cause was 
only a matter of time. 

The result of the Savoy Conference was duly The results 
notified to the King. After waiting till October, he feed 
sent letters to the Primate to lay before Convocation, 
ordering them to proceed with the revision of the 
Prayer-book. They met on Nov. 21, and without 
delay nominated a Committee of Bishops to carry 
out the work. Considering the action which the 
House of Commons had taken, they regarded the 
business of pressing urgency, and directed that they 
should meet daily except Sundays till the revision 
was completed. It has been asserted! that the 
appointed Revisionists did not act separately, but 
that immediately after their appointment Convoca- 
tion repented of having delegated its powers to a 
small body, and resolving themselves into a Com- 
mittee of the whole House, proceeded at once with 
the work. 

There is unquestionably much uncertainty, but on The uncer- 


the whole we are disposed to think that the appoint- ee 


adopted by 
Convoca- 
tion. 


ment was not rescinded, but that the members of 
Convocation decided to sit simultaneously with the 


1 Cf. Swarnson’s Parliamentary Hist. of the Act of Uniformity, 
p. 15. Carpw. Confer. 371. 


The 
Committee 
appointed 


for the final 


revision, 


Wren, 


188 The Caroline Settlement. 


Revisionists, so as to consider without delay the 
recommendations of the Committee to be laid before 
them day by day. An incidental note in Sancroft’s 
handwriting, in Cosin’s “corrected copy,” in refer- 
ence to proposed alterations in the Communion 


Office, stating that “my lords the bishops at Elie — 


House ordered all in the old method,” seems inex- 
plicable on the theory that the work had been taken 
out of their hands. 

Let us look in now upon the Committee of 
Revision. The place of meeting was the house 
situated in the Hatton garden of historic memory 
in connection with Queen Elizabeth’s threat to 
unfrock the “ proud Prelate.”? 

They were eight in number, Cosin of Durham, 
Morley of Worcester, Warner of Rochester, Sander- 
son of Lincoln, Henchman of Salisbury, Nicholson of 
Gloucester, Skinner of Oxford, and Wren of Ely. 
Sancroft was appointed to act as Secretary. Of the 
Bishops the first four had been members of the 
Savoy Conference. Of the remaining three Wren 
alone was greatly distinguished. Memories of the 
most touching interest cluster round his name. 
Perhaps no one suffered more persecution at the 
hands of the Puritans, and in the estimation of his 

1Cf. p. 23. 


a en as 
5 : . 
a 

‘ 


The Caroline Settlement. 189 


persecutors he deserved even more than he underwent. 
From his early years he was fiercely opposed to 
dissent, and for this reason was translated from 
Hereford to the turbulent See of Norwich, where 
schism was rifer than elsewhere. It is said that he 
ruled with such a high hand that its chief town 
was crippled in its manufacture and suffered great 
loss of wealth from the immense emigration of 
weavers who sought liberty of conscience on foreign 
shores.? 

From Norwich he was transferred to the impor- 
tant diocese and Palatinate of Ely, owing his pro- 
motion to his knowledge of law, both civil and 
ecclesiastical, which was requisite for the office. 

His rigid enforcement of Church discipline, and 
his attachment to Catholic doctrine, raised bitter 
hostility against him during the Commonwealth, and 
after being subjected to a succession of calumnious 
slanders, he was impeached before the Commons for 
“high crimes and misdemeanours,” condemned, and 
thrown into the Tower. Here he remained for 
eighteen years, so cheerful throughout and resigned 
to the severities of his confinement that, as the 
Historian says, “the Church beheld his sufferings 
and saw by him that nothing in Christianity was 

1 Cf. WREN’s Parentalia, 10. 


190 The Caroline Settlement. 


impossible, and the world did almost pardon his 
enemies for the pleasure and benefit of his example.” 

It was round his table at Ely House in that 
memorable winter that the Commissioners sat to 
establish for many generations the Liturgical forms 
and ceremonies in which the worship of the 
English Church was to be offered up. 

They carried out their work with such expedition 
that they laid themselves open to a charge of incon- 
siderate haste, but in reality the revision had long 
been anticipated and prepared for with the utmost 
care and judgment. 

There was a great mass of well-digested material 
ready to hand, which had been accumulating almost 
from the beginning of the century. Wren? himself, 
in conjunction with Laud, had revised the Scotch 
Liturgy, and during his long imprisonment had 
weighed well the questions in dispute, particularly 
the deficiencies of the Anglican Ritual, always buoy- 
ing himself up with the conviction that the time for 
a reaction was not far distant. 

But the man whose labours contributed most to 
the final result was Cosin, who had been named as 
President of the Commission. 

So early as 1619 A.D., he had made a collection of 

Cf. WREN’s Parentalia, 26; and Appendix Iv., fra, p. 232. 


The Caroline Settlement. IQ! 

“notes” in an interleaved Prayer-book, and three or 
four! documents of a similar kind succeeded at 
intervals. The Revisers had little more to do than 
decide which of the proposed alterations should be 
accepted, and desire their Secretary to note down 
their decision for the approval of Convocation. A 
careful comparison of “the notes” with the Book as 
finally published shows that about ninety in every 
hundred alterations were in accordance with Cosin’s 
suggestions. 

There was a departure from the ordinary rules in 
respect to the Northern Convocation. In consequence 
of the difficulties and delay in transmitting messages 
between the North and South, the habit of discuss- 
ing the questions separately was broken through, 
and deputies were sent from York, to sit and vote 
in the Houses of Canterbury. 

When the Revision was finished it was found that The 
six hundred changes? great and small had been made. cay So, 

The doctrinal changes were by no means numerous, fees 
but, such as they were, they testified definitely to the 
Catholic spirit of the Revision. 


1 Ist. Ms. notes in an interleaved Prayer-book ; 2dly. Ms. 
notes in another Prayer-book, collected by Cosin ; 3dly. Ms. notes 
by Cosin, in his own hand; 4¢hly. ms. notes by Bishop Andrewes. 
Cf. Lats. Convoc. 287. 

For a summary of these, cf. Appendix VL 


Doctrinal 
changes. 


192 The Caroline Settlement. 


The “priesthood” was more distinctly marked. 
At the Savoy Conference, the Presbyterians had 
pleaded for the substitution of “minister” through- 
out the rubrics in place of “priest.” The object 
of their request was fully understood, for it went to 
the very root of the dissensions between the Church 
and Nonconformity. “No Priest, no Church” was 
a maxim which had been handed down from St. 
Jerome’s! time, and the Bishops might have appealed 
to it with no little force, but they replied with calm- 
ness and simplicity that it was “unreasonable that 
the word minister should only be used in the 
Liturgy, since some parts might be performed by a 
deacon, others by none under the order of a priest, 
viz., absolution and consecration; it was fit there- 
fore that some such word as priest should be used 
for these offices, and not minister, which signified at 
large every one that ministered in that holy office of 
whatsoever order he might be.” And now the 
Committee determined to place the meaning of the 
Bishop’s reply beyond dispute. 

They displaced “minister” and “pastor” and 
substituted “ priest”? in two important places. The 


1 Ecclesia non est, que non habet sacerdotes. S. HiERON. Adv. 
Incif. c. 8. 2 CarDwW. Confer. vii. 342. 

3 Itis worthy of note, as pointing to the entire disappearance in 
the minds of the leaders of Revision of all aversion to the title 


The Caroline Settlement. 193 
Absolution was henceforward to be pronounced 
by a “priest,” and the suffrage in the Litany 
for “Bishops, pastors, and ministers,’ was in 
future to be made for “Bishops, priests, and 
deacons.” 

Again, the Presbyterians in their arguments for 
the identity of the office of Bishop and Priest had 
laid stress on the fact that no distinction of functions 
was recognised in the Ordinal. 

The old form in the Consecration of a Bishop, 
“Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou 
stirre up the grace of GoD which is in thee by 
imposition of hands,” was altered to the present 
form: “Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and 
work of a bishop in the Church of Gop.” 

A corresponding addition was made to the words 
used in the ordering of Priests: viz, “for the 
Office and Work of a Priest.” 


of ** priest,” that it was so largely re-introduced that it occurs now 
about the same number of times as it did in the First Prayer-book 
of Edward v1. 

1 There is a letter extant, written by Dean Prideaux to one of 
Archbishop Sancroft’s chaplains, stating his belief that this altera- 
tion was made without any respect 1o the Romanists, but ‘“‘to 
silence acavil of the Presbyterians, who, from an Ordinal, pretended 
to prove against us that there was no difference between the two 
functions, because the words of ordination said nothing to him (as 
a bishop) in the old Ordinal, which he had not afore as a priest.” 
It bears date November 25th, 1687 a.D., and is given in full by 
CaRDWELL’s Confer. viii. 386, n. 


N 


194 The Caroline Settlement. 


In the Prayer for the Church Militant,? though 
they were unable to recover all that had been lost 
by the omission of a prayer for the dead with which 
it closed in the First Prayer-book of Edward V1., they 
took an important step for vindicating a recognition 
of “the Communion of Saints” by inserting the 
beautiful thanksgiving for the life and example of 
those who had departed in the faith and fear of Gop. 

The Presbyterians had conceived a dislike for the 
title of “Church,” and adopted “congregation” 
instead. No less than four? changes were made in 
connection with this to avoid even the slightest 
suspicion, to which the adoption of the latter term 
might have given rise, in favour of the Presbyterian 
form of Church Government. 

In the Communion Office, other changes were 
introduced. Provision was made for the “Lesser 
Oblation,” the presentation of the Elements on the 
Altar, by prefixing the rubric to the Prayer for the 
Church Militant, “‘and when there is a Communion, 
the Priest shall then place upon the Table as much 
Bread and Wine as he shall think sufficient,” and 
further by inserting the word “oblation,” to be 


1 For a full account of Prayers for the Dead in this prayer, cf. 
Luckock's After Death, p. 241. 
2 In the Collects for Good Friday, the fifth and sixteenth Sun- 


days after Trinity, and St. Simon and St. Jude, ‘ 


i? 


4 ME i » 


The Caroline Settlement. 195 


used in the prayer itself, of the Elements after their 
dedication to Gop. 

Again, greater reverence was shown for that 
portion of the Consecrated Bread and Wine which 
remained unconsumed, by a direction that the same 
should be covered “with a fair linen cloth;” and 
also by the introduction of the sixth of the final 
rubrics, ordering that “if any remain of that which 
was consecrated .. . the Priest and such other of 
the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, 
shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat 
and drink the same.” 

It has often however been maintained that the The Black 
reintroduction of the “Black Rubric,” or the baie 
“Declaration of Kneeling” may well be set over ae 
against all the alterations which were made in a ‘°™ 
Catholic direction ; but such a theory will be found 
untenable when subjected to examination. 

It was no doubt originally introduced into the 
Second Prayer-book of Edward VI. as a concession to 
the Puritan party. There is therefore some prima 
Jacie force in the above argument, but it is entirely 
destroyed by the alteration of the wording which 
the Revisionists made before reinserting it. On its 
first appearance it ran thus: “We do declare that 
thereby (i.e. by kneeling) no adoration is intended 


196 The Caroline Settlement. 


. unto any real and essential presence there 
being of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood.” On its 
reintroduction by the Caroline Revisionists it was 
worded, “unto any Corporrl Presence of Christ’s 
natural Flesh and Blood.” The first traversed 
the Catholic doctrine of a Real Presence: the 
second simply denied Transubstantiation. This 
Declaration, which has been interpreted as a con- 
cession to the Presbyterians, who shrank from 
kneeling on doctrinal grounds, was really couched 
in such well-chosen language, that while it appeared 
conciliatory to them, it in no way discredited 
the highest Sacramental teaching of the Anglican 
Church. 

Such were some of the chief changes resulting 
from the last revision. It has been thought a 
matter for wonder that with Cosin in the Chair, and 
Wren to sympathise with and support him, the 
Committee should not have carried restoration 
further on the lines of the First Prayer-book. 

Cosin pre. Attempts we know were made, but unhappily 


luded f : : 
Paty exten: without success.! Cosin had remodelled the Prayer 


sive reform. | Consecration, introducing the Invocation of the 
Holy Ghost for the sanctification of the Elements, 


and had brought back the Prayer of Oblation to its — 


1 Surtees Soc. Publ. No. 55, p. xiii. 


The Caroline Settlement. 197 


proper place. The Revisionists, however, declined 
to accept his proposals. Their motive in doing so 
was not prompted by disapprobation, but by a 
desire to adhere as strictly as possible to their 
letters of instruction, And these were so un- 
fortunately worded that they could hardly fail to be 
diversely interpreted. One party laid stress upon 
that portion which directed them “to compare the 
services with the most ancient Liturgies,” while the 
other attached paramount importance to another 
portion in which they were ordered “to avoid all 
unnecessary alterations.” 

The Committee finished their work, and the Re- 
vised Book was subscribed on December 20th. 


Measures were taken to insure its integrity being The Sealed 
preserved! Certain printed copies were carefully baer 
1 Printers’ errors have nevertheless slipped in. One such is 
worthy of notice, as having led to a distinct breach of Church 
Rule. Originally the rubric after the Nicene Creed provided that 
the Banns of Marriage should be published then. In 1805 a.p. 
the Delegates of the Oxford Press omitted the words from the 
rubric on their own responsibility, to bring it, as they supposed, 
into agreement with an Act of George 11., which ordered that the 
Banns be published ‘‘ in the Morning Service, or Evening Service 
if there be no Morning Service, after the Second Lesson.” They 
misread the object of the Act, which was not to interfere with the 
proper place for publication, viz., after the Nicene Creed, when 
the Creed was said, but to provide an alternative, where there was 
only Evening Service. DR. STEPHENS gave a legal opinion to the 
effect that the present prevailing custom of publishing after the 
Second Lesson in the Morning is ‘‘a flagrant breach” of Church 
Order. 


198 The Caroline Settlement. 


examined by a Committee appointed for the pur- 
pose, and each attested by the Great Seal of Eng- 
land.t_ Each Cathedral was ordered to procure one 
of these, and after having its name legibly stamped 
on the cover, to lay it up among its archives as an 
ultimate standard of reference in case of dispute. 
A copy was also sent to the Tower, while four more 
were deposited in the several Courts at Westminster. 
It was an omen of sinister import for the part 
the Book was unhappily destined to play in legal 
proceedings, that it should be deemed necessary 
that each Court should be furnished with a copy 
of its own. 

The copy which belonged to the King’s Bench has 
come down to us in good preservation, and retains 
that which was their distinguishing feature, viz., 
the Great Seal perfect, still attached by the original 
cords ; the rest of the Legal Copies are preserved, 
though in a far less perfect condition, in the Public 
Record Office. Of those acquired by Capitular 
bodies, three, which are in possession of St. Paul’s, 
Christ Church, and Ely Cathedral respectively, have 
been collated. 


1 For many interesting details the reader is referred to the Book 
of Common Prayer, edited by A. J. STEPHENS for the Ecclesiastical 
History Society, Introduction, clxxix.-cc., and to JAMES PARKER’S 
Introd. to the Revisions of the Prayer Book, dx,-dxxvi, 


The Caroline Settlement. 199 


The Act of Uniformity received the Royal Assent, The Act of 
May 19, 1662 4.pD. And it was enjoined by Statute ee 
that the use of the Revised Book of Common Prayer 
should be obligatory upon all ministers after the 
ensuing Feast of St. Bartholomew (Aug. 24), before 
which date they were called upon to declare their 
“unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything 
contained and preserved therein.” The King felt 
scruples in signing the document, after the readiness 
he had so frequently expressed to grant “liberty to 
tender consciences,” but he was overruled by the 
wisdom of his Parliament and Convocation, and the 
principles and worship of the Church were pre- 
served whole and entire. 

The result is known to every one. “Black The conse- 
Bartholomew” witnessed the ejection of eighteen Tee 
hundred! Presbyterians who refused to conform. 

It can hardly be denied that there is some justice pha 
in the complaints of those who suffered, both as to unduly 
the manner in which the operation of the Act was oe 
enforced, as well as to the stringency of the terms 
of conformity. The first proposal was that it should 
not come into force till Michaelmas, but the time 
was afterwards curtailed, and apparently not without 


1 For various estimates compare STOUGHTON’s Eccles. Hist., 
Appendix, 539-542, 


Baxter sets 
an example 
of con- 
stancy. 


Reynolds 
yields. 


200 The Caroline Settlement. 


malice prépense, in order that the nonconforming mini- 
sters might lose the tithes for the current year, the 
Feast of St. Michael being the day when they fell due. 

Again, the hardship was aggravated by an un- 
warrantable delay in not publishing the Revised 
Book till the beginning of August, so that the 
Presbyterians were kept in suspense as to whether 
they would be able to conform to it or not; it was 
actually said that in some cases assent was demanded 
before the Book had even been seen.? 

One of the first to refuse was Richard Baxter. 
After the eagerness which he had shown at the 
Savoy Conference in attempting to supersede the 
Prayer-book entirely, compliance with it at this 
juncture would have exposed him to the reproach of 
every honest-minded man: and he lost no time in 
making his decision known, hoping that its pub- 
licity at this early stage would influence the conduct 
of others who looked to him for guidance. 

Reynolds, on the other hand, subscribed and 
retained his preferment. He was not so deeply 
committed as his friend, but it was a bitter disap- 
pointment to many, who would have rejoiced in the 


1 Steel, a Flintshire clergyman, in his farewell sermon, declared 
that ‘‘he was turned out for not giving his unfeigned assent and 
consent to a book which he never saw or could see.” STOUGHTON’S 
Ch. of Restor. i. 261. 


The Caroline Settlement. 201 


deposition of a Bishop as affording the strongest 
evidence of the force of Puritan convictions, 

The Sunday preceding the ill-fated Saint’s Day the 
was commonly agreed upon for the pastors who (7%. 
stood firm to take leave of their flocks. Noncon- ¥@l'* 
formist writers have excited compassion by the 
graphic pictures they have drawn of the scenes 
enacted on that mournful day. Happily we may 
compassionate men in affliction without admitting 
the justice of their grievance, 

Calamy had gathered into his chapel, Sunday 
after Sunday, greater crowds than congregated any- 
where else. Thomas Lye, Philip Henry, Oliver 
Heywood, Jacomb, Lamb, and many others were 
deservedly beloved, and their parting words drew 
tears of genuine sorrow from many eyes, but neither 
the faith which they professed, nor the commission 
which they bore as unepiscopally ordained, belonged 
to the Church whose offices and ministry they had 
unjustly usurped. 

It is idle to talk of opportunities of comprehension The im- 
lost, and bewail that men who might have been Sasi 
friends were confirmed in hostility ; any compromise a EHORE 
which would have satisfied them would have ruined pa oF 
the Church. It was not merely that they advocated Principles: 


a system of worship alien to long-established usage, 


The last 

settlement 
at the bar 
of history. 


202 The Caroline Settlement. 


but they claimed for the Presbytery a right which 
all through the Church’s history has been the sole 
prerogative of the Episcopate. However much then 
we may be touched with the sufferings of the ejected 
ministers, we cannot call them wrongs, nor see how 
they could have been averted without surrendering 
fundamental doctrines, and severing the Church of 
the Restoration from the Church of the Apostles. 
The Caroline Settlement has amply justified itself, 
and proved the soundness of the principles upon 
which it was made. Criticism is well-nigh disarmed 
when we point to the fact that it has maintained its 
ground for two centuries and a quarter. It survived 
the shock of the Nonjuring Secession, it survived the 
deadness and coldness of the Georgian period, which 
would have destroyed the vitality of a weaker con- 
stitution, and has become in this generation the root 
and source of a new outburst of Catholic faith and 
zeal almost unequalled in the Church’s history. 

We believe then that every loyal Churchman 
may look back to it with satisfaction. 

The Church passed through a crisis of almost 
unparalleled gravity. Her enemies were never more 
formidable either in numbers, or influence, or intel- 
lectual power. Happily it befell at a time when she 
was able to confront them at every point, and it is 


The Caroline Settlement. 203 


a matter for most, grateful acknowledgment that 
with many temptations to yield for the sake of peace, 
her defenders maintained the contest to the end 
without making a single concession calculated in 
any way to compromise her position as a true and 
rightful branch of the 

OnE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 


2: Is 


APPENDIX I. 
On the Gallican Liturap. 


N the Introductory Chapter we spoke of the 
earliest Form of Liturgical Worship traceable in 

the records of the British Church. And while we 
attributed its adoption to the visit of Germanus and The Galli- 
Severus, who were sent as a deputation from Gaul to ee 
help the Britons to combat the Pelagian heresy, we ae 
observed that it was highly probable that the 
Liturgy which they brought with them was modi- 
fied in some particulars, yet for the leading features 
we turn to the Gallican Form as it was used in the 
country from which it derived its appellation. It 
was superseded, we said, by the Roman in England 
at the Council of Cloveshoo, 747 A.D., but one of the 
effects of the Norman Conquest was the Gallicanising 
of the country, and many variations from the Roman 
introduced into the Sarum have been attributed to 
the national prejudices of the Liturgical Reformer 
Osmund, the Norman Count. 

One peculiarity pointing in this direction has 
lately been noticed.1 In the Sarum Liturgy the 


1 Hammonn’s Liturgies, Hastern and Western, Introd. lxiv. 
205 


206 Appendix I. 


Points of rubrics are cast in the imperative mood instead of 

resem- . . . . 
blance the present or future indicative, as is usually the 

between the > 

Sarum case. Now we may fairly conjecture that this was 


Missal a: 
pend adopted from the Gallican; we are unable to speak 


mney positively, because no rubrics have yet been found 
belonging to this Liturgy. But in the Sister- 
Liturgy, the Mozarabic, used in the neighbouring 
country of Spain, and bearing such a close resem- 
blance in its structure that their common origin has 
never been doubted, this characteristic distinction is 
found: ¢.g., In the Sarum, Let the Priest say ; in the 
Mozarabic, Let the Priest say; but in the Roman, 
The Priest says. 
Theoriginal The Gallican belonged by origin to the Ephesine 
theGallican family of Liturgies, and was in the first instance 
liturgy; connected with St. John. The Church of Ephesus. 
established Christianity in Gaul at an early date, 
radiating in all probability from Lyons over a great 
part of the country. In the second century, 177 
A.D., we find the Christians of Lyons and Vienne? 
writing to the Churches in Asia and Phrygia, and 
seeking sympathy in their sufferings like children 
from a common mother. 
The Liturgy of Ephesus, varying in some degree 
to suit the country, became the Liturgy of France, 
1 Cf. EusEBIUS, Eccles. Hist. v. 1. 


Lair 
ers. 
b 


On the Galhican Liturgy. 207 
and continued in use there till Pepin first introduced 
the Roman chant and psalmody, and Charlemagne 
completely supplanted it by imposing the Sacramen- 
tary of St. Gregory, and issued an edict that this 
should be strictly adhered to. Our interest how- 
ever is but little diminished by the knowledge that 
before the Conquest it had ceased to be used in 
Gaul, or by the fact that the eighth century 
witnessed the discontinuance of it in its Anglican 
form in this country. The manner in which the 
highest act of Worship was performed during those 
centuries when this land was being claimed for 
Christ, and the Church set up upon the ruins of 
Paganism, is well worthy of our careful consi- 
deration, and on these grounds we have subjoined 
an outline of the Gallican Liturgy according to the 
plan which, with considerable difficulty and perhaps 
some uncertainty, the best Liturgiologists have been 


able to construct. 


The following is an outline of the structure of 


the Gallican Liturgy :'— 

An Anthem or Introit with “Glory be to the Father,” etc. 

The mutual salutation of Priest and People, “The Lorp 
be with you,” etc. 

1 Cf. PALMER, Origines Liturgice, i. 158 ; MABILLON, De Liturg. 
Gall.; Le Brun, Dissertationes de Liturgiis; Hammonn, 
Liturgies. 


208 _ Appendix TL. 


The Trisagion (in Greek and Latin), followed by Kyrie 
eleison. 

The Benedictus. 

A Lesson from (i.) the Prophets, (ii.) an Epistle. 

The Benedicite.? 

The Gospel read at the Ambon, the clerks at the 
beginning making response, “Glory be to Thee, O Lorn,” 
and at the end, “Glory to Gop Almighty.” ‘ 

Homilies, Prayers, and Collect, post precem. 

Departure of the Catechumens. 

The Preface or address on the day, and Collect. 

An Anthem, during which was made the oblation of the 
Elements, and prayer for their sanctification. 

The recitation of the Diptychs, with prayers for the souls 
of the Saints named. 

Collects post nomina. 

Kiss of peace,” and Collect ad pacem. 

The Preface, i.e. the part beginning “It is meet and 
right,” ete. 

The Tersanctus. 

The commencement of the Canon. 

The Consecration. 

The Collect post mysteriwm, or post secreta. 

The Fraction and the Commixture during the singing of 
an Anthem. 

A proper Preface. 

The Lorn’s Prayer recited by the Priest and People. 

The Blessing, and the Priest’s Communion. 

The Communicants approach the Altar. 

Two Collects, one post communionem, the other conswm- 
matio Miss, with which the Service closed. 


1 HAMMOND makes no mention of this. 
2 Neither of this. 


APPENDIX II. 


Che Order of the Communion, 


N December 20th, 1547 a.p., an Act of Parlia- 
ment was passed bearing the title, “An Act 
against such as shall unreverently speak against the 
Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, commonly 
called the Sacrament of the Altar, and for the receiy- 
ing thereof in both kinds.” This was drawn up in 
accordance with certain recommendations emanating 
from the Lower House of Convocation. The Com- 
mittee of Divines, who had been appointed to revise 
the Liturgy, issued in the spring of the following 
year, March 8, 1548 aA.D., their first instalment 
entitled “The Order of the Communion.” It pro- 
vided not only for the restoration of the Cup to the 
Laity, but supplied them with a Service-book, which 
was to be used whenever they communicated. 

We have thought fit to print it at length, not 
only because it has been frequently referred to in 
the preceding pages, but because from the nature of 
circumstances it must be full of interest to all who 
desire to trace the growth of the English Liturgy. 

0) 


The Order 
of the Com- 
munion. 


210 Appendix LT. 


The following is the Order of the Service :— 


First, the Parson, Vicar, or Curate, the next Sunday or Holyday, or at 
the least one day before he shall minister the Communion, shall give 
warning to his Parishioners, or those which be present, that they 
prepare themselves thereto, saying to them openly and plainly as 
hereafter followeth, or such like. 

Dear friends, and you especially upon whose souls I have 
cure and charge, upon day next I do entend, by God’s 
grace, to offer to all such as shall be thereto godly disposed, 
the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of 
Christ ; to be taken of them in the remembrance of his 
most fruitful and glorious Passion: by the which Passion 
we have obtained remission of our sins, and be made par- 
takers of the kingdom of heaven, whereof we be assured and 
ascertained, if we come to the said Sacrament with hearty 
repentance of our offences, stedfast faith in God’s mercy, 
and earnest mind to obey God’s will, and to offend no more: 
wherefore our duty is, to come to these holy Mysteries with 
most hearty thanks to be given to Almighty God for his 
infinite mercy and benefits given and bestowed upon us, 
his unworthy servants, for whom he hath not only given 
his Body to death, and shed his Blood, but also doth youch- 
safe, in a Sacrament and Mystery, to give us his said Body 
and Blood spiritually to feed and drink upon. The which 
Sacrament being so divine and holy a thing, and so com- 
fortable to them which receive it worthily, and so danger- 
ous to them that will presume to take the same unworthily ; 
my duty is to exhort you in the mean season to consider 
the greatness of the thing, and to search and examine your 
own consciences, and that not lightly, nor after the manner 
of dissimulers with God; but as they which should come 
to a most godly and heavenly banquet; not to come but 
in the marriage garment required of God in Scripture, that 
you may, so much as lieth in you, be found worthy to come 
to such a Table. The way and mean thereto is, 


The Order of the Communion. 211 


First, That you be truly repentant of your former evil 
life, and that you confess with an unfeigned heart to 
Almighty God your sins and unkindness towards his 
Majesty, committed either by will, word, or deed, infirmity 
or ignorance ; and’ that with inward sorrow and tears you 
bewail your offences, and require of Almighty God mercy 
and pardon, promising to him from the bottom of your 
hearts, the amendment of your former life. And amonges 
all others, I am commanded of God especially to move and 
exhort you to reconcile yourselves to your neighbours whom 
you have offended, or who hath offended you, putting out of 
your hearts all hatred and malice against them, and to be in 
love and charity with all the world, and to forgive other, as 
you would that God should forgive you. And if there be 
any of you whose conscience is troubled and grieved in any 
thing, lacking comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to 
some other discreet and learned Priest taught in the law of 
God, and confess and open his sin and grief secretly ; that 
he may receive such ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort, 
that his conscience may be relieved, and that of us, as a 
Minister of God, and of the Church, he may receive comfort 
and Absolution, to the satisfaction of his mind, and avoid- 
ing of all scruple and doubtfulness : requiring such as shall 
be satisfied with a general Confession not to be offended 
with them that doth use, to their further satisfying, the 
auricular and secret Confession to the Priest; nor those 
also, which think needful or convenient, for the quietness of 
their own consciences, particularly to open their sins to the 
Priest, to be offended with them which are satisfied with 
their humble confession to God, and the general Confession 
to the Church ; but in all these things to follow and keep 
the rule of charity ; and every man to be satisfied with his 
own conscience, not judging other men’s minds or acts, 
where as he hath no warrant of God’s Word for the 
same 


The Order 
of the Com 


munion, 


The Order 
of the Com- 
munion. 


212 Appendix IT. 


@ The time of the Communion shall be immediately after that the Priest 
himself hath received the Sacrament, without the varying of any 
other rite or ceremony in the Mass, (until other order shall be pro- 
vided,) but as heretofore usually the Priest hath done with the 
Sacrament of the Body, to prepare, bless, and consecrate so much as 
will serve the people; so it shall yet continue still after the same 
manner and form, save that he shall bless and consecrate the biggest 
Chalice or some fair and convenient Cup or Cups full of Wine, with 
some Water put unto it. And that day not drink it up all himself, 
but taking only one sup or draught, leave the rest upon the Altar 
covered, and turn to them that are disposed to be partakers of the 
Communion, and shall thus exhort them as followeth. 


Dearty beloved in the Lord, ye, coming to this hely 
Communion, must consider what S. Paul writeth to the 
Corinthians, how he exhorteth all persons diligently to 
try and examine themselves, or ever they presume to eat 
of this Bread and drink of this Cup. For as the benefit is 
great, if with a truly penitent heart and lively faith we 
receive this holy Sacrament; (for then we spiritually eat 
the Flesh of Christ, and drink his Blood ; then we dwell in 
Christ, and Christ in us ; we be made one with Christ, and 
Christ with us): So is the danger great, if we receive the 
same unworthily ; for then we become guilty of the Body 
and Blood of Christ our Saviour; we eat and drink our 
own damnation, because we make no difference of the 
Lord’s Body ; we kindle God’s wrath over us ; we provoke 
him to plague us with divers diseases, and sundry kinds of 
death. Judge therefore yourselves (brethren), that ye be 
not judged of the Lord ; let your mind be without desire to 
sin ; repent you truly for your sins past; have an earnest 
and lively faith in Christ our Saviour; be in perfect 
charity with all men; so shall ye be meet partakers of 
these holy Mysteries. But above all things you must give 
most humble and hearty thanks to God, the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the redemption of the world 
by the Death and Passion of our Saviour Christ, both God 
and Man; who did humble himself, even to the death upon 


The Order of the Communion. 213 


the Cross, for us miserable sinners, lying in darkness and 
the shadow of death; that he might make us the children 
of God, and exalt us to everlasting Life. And to the end 
that we alway should remember the exceeding love of our 
Master and only Saviour Jesus Christ, thus doing for us, 
and the innumerable benefits which by his precious blood- 
shedding he hath obtained to us; he hath left in these holy 
Mysteries, as a pledge of his love, and a continual remem- 
brance of the same, his own blessed Body and precious 
Blood, for us spiritually to feed upon, to our endless comfort 
and consolation. To him therefore, with the Father and 
the Holy Ghost, let us give, as we are most bound, continual 
thanks ; submitting ourselves wholly to his holy will and 
pleasure, and studying to serve him in true holiness and 
righteousness all the days of our life. Amen. 


Then the Priest shall say to them that be ready to take the Sacrament, 


TF any man here be an open blasphemer, advouterer, in 
malice, or envy, or any other notable crime, and be not 
truly sorry therefore, and earnestly minded to leave the 
same vices, or that doth not trust himself to be reconciled 
to Almighty God, and in charity with all the world, let 
him yet a while bewail his sins, and not come to this holy 
Table, lest, after the taking of this most blessed Bread, the 
devil enter into him, as he did into Judas, to fulfil in him 
all iniquity, and to bring him to destruction, both of body 
and soul, 
@Here the Priest shall pause a while, to see if any man wlll withdraw 

himself: and if he perceive any so to do, then let him common with 
him privily at convenient leisure, and see whether he can with good 
exhortation bring him to grace. Aud after alittle pause, the Priest 
shall say, 

You that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins 
and offences committed to Almighty God, and be in love 
and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new 
life, and heartily to follow the commandments of God, and 


The Order 
of the Com 
munion. 


The Order 
of the Com- 
munion. 


214 Appendix IT, 


to walk from henceforth in his holy ways; draw near, and 

take this holy Sacrament to your comfort, make your 

humble Confession to Almighty God, and to his holy 

Church, here gathered together in his Name, meekly kneel- 

ing upon your knees. 

Then shall a general Confession be made, in the name of all those that 
are minded to receive the holy Communion, either by one of them or 
else by one of the Ministers, or by the Priest himself; all kneeling 
humbly upon their knees, 

Aumicuty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker 
of all things, Judge of all men ; We knowledge and bewail 
our manifold sins and wickedness, which we, from time to 
time, most grievously have committed by thought, word, 
and deed, against thy divine Majesty, provoking most 
justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do 
earnestly repent, and be heartily sorry for these our mis- 
doings ; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the 
burthen of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have 
mercy upon us, most merciful Father; for thy Son our 
Lord Jesus Christ's sake forgive us all that is past; and 


- grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in 


newness of life, to the honour and glory of thy Name; 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
@ Then shall the Priest stand up, and turning him to the 
people, say thus: 

Our blessed Lord, who hath left power to his Church to 
absolve penitent sinners from their sins, and to restore to 
the grace of the heavenly Father such as truly believe in 
Christ ; Have mercy upon you; pardon and deliver you 
from all sins; confirm and strength you in all goodness; 
and bring you to everlasting life. 

Then shall the Priest stand up, and turning him to the 
people, say thus: 

Hear what comfortable words our Saviour Christ saith to 
all that truly turn to him 


The Order of the Communion. 215 


Come unto me all that travail and be heavy loaden, and The Order 
T shall refresh you. So God loved the world, that he gave of the Com- 
his only-begotten Son, to the end that all that believe in seas 
him should not perish, but have life everlasting. 

Hear also what S. Paul saith. 

This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be 
embraced and received, That Jesus Christ came into this 
world to save sinners. 

Hear also what S. John saith. 

If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, 
Jesus Christ the righteous: he it is that obtained grace 
for our sins. 


@ Then shall the Priest kneel down and say, in the name of all them that 
shall receive the Communion, this prayer following : 


WE do not presume to come to this thy Table (O merciful 
Lord) trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold 
and great mercies. We be not worthy so much as to gather 
up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same 
Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us 
therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh of thy dear 
Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his Blood, in these holy 
Mysteries, that we may continually dwell in him, and he in 
us, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, 
and our souls washed through his most precious Blood. 
Amen. 

@ Then shall the Priest rise, the people still reverently kneeling, and the 
Priest shall deliver the Communion first to the Ministers, if any be 
there present, that they may be ready to help the Priest, and after 
to the other. And when he doth deliver the Sacrament of the Body 
of Christ, he shall say to every one these words following, 

Tue Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for 
thee, preserve thy body unto everlasting life. 

q And the Priest, delivering the Sacrament of the Blood, and giving 
every one to drink once and no more, shall say, 

Tue Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for 
thee, preserve thy soul unto everlasting life. 


The Order 
of the Com- 
munion. 


216 Appendix LT, 


@ If there be a Deacon, or other Priest, then shall he follow with the 
Chalice; and as the Priest ministereth the bread, so shall he, for 
more expedition, minister the Wine, in form before written, 


Then shall the Priest turning him to the people, let the people depart 
with this blessing: 


THE peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep 
your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, 
and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 


@ To the which the people shall answer, 
Amen. 


@ Note, that the Bread that shall be consecrated shall be such as here- 
tofore hath been accustomed. And every of the said consecrated Breads 
shall be broken in two pieces, at the least, or more, by the discretion of 
the Minister, and so distributed. And men must not think less to be 
received in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole Body of 
our Saviour Jesu Christ. 


C Note, that if it doth so chance that the Wine hallowed and consecrate 
doth not suffice or be enough for them that do take the Communion, the 
Priest, after the first Cup or Chalice be emptied, may go again to the 
Altar, and reverently and devoutly prepare and consecrate another, and so 
the third, or more likewise, beginning at these words, Simili modo postquam 

cenatum est, and ending at these words Qué 
pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in 
remissionem peccatorum, and 
without any levation or 
lifting up. 


APPENDIX III. 


On the Bampton Court Conference, 


T may have been thought that, in treating of the 
crises through which the Book of Common Prayer 
has passed, we might have added a fifth epoch, and 
drawn out the details of its history at the beginning 
of King James 1’s reign. The reason which has 
prompted us to relegate this to a brief and supple- 
mentary page against our inclination (for no episode 
could be found which lends itself so readily for de- 
scription), is the consciousness that, in estimating 
the importance of its results, this period is found to 
be wholly unworthy of the attention which the rest 
are entitled to. 
Inasmuch, however, as it did leave its mark upon 
the contents of the Service-books, we have placed The hopes 
of the Puri- 


before our readers a summary of the proceedings tansrevived 


2 : : aot on the 
of the Council, drawn in the main from original accession of 


5 SRE L 
documents Upon the accession of James 1. in® 


1‘*The sum and substance of the Conference contracted by 
Dean Barlow.” ‘‘A letter from Patrick Galloway to the Presby- 
tery at Edinburgh, concerning the Conference.” ‘A letter from 
Court by Matthew, Bishop of Durham.” All of these have been 
placed within reach of the ordinary reader by Cardwell in his 
History of Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer. 
- 217 


The 
Millenary 
Petition. 


218 Appendix IIT, 


1603 A.D., the Puritans were full of hope that their 
grievances against the existing Forms and Ceremonies 
of Worship would receive a favourable consideration. 
Accordingly a Petition purporting to be signed by 
“a thousand of His Majesty’s subjects and ministers,” 
hence called “the Millenary Petition,” in which they 
embodied their objections, was presented to him 
shortly after his arrival in England. 

It was couched in these terms :— 


“Most Gracious AND DREAD SOVEREIGN, 


““We, the ministers of the gospel in this land, neither as 
factious men, affecting a popular parity in the Church, nor 
as schismatics, aiming at the dissolution of the state ecclesi- 
astical, but, as the faithful servants of Christ and loyal 
subjects to your Majesty, desiring and longing for the 
redress of divers abuses of the Church, could do no less, in 
our obedience to God, service to your Majesty, and love to 
his Church, than acquaint your princely Majesty with our 
particular griefs. 

“ Our humble suit, then, unto your Majesty is that these 
offences following, some may be removed, some amended, 
some qualified :—In the Church service: that the cross in 
Baptism, interrogatories ministered to infants, Confirmations, 
as superfluous, may be taken away: Baptism not to be 
ministered by women, and so explained: the cap and 
surplice not urged: that examination may go before the 
Communion: that it be ministered with a sermon: that 
divers terms of priests and absolution and some other used, 
with the ring in marriage, and other such like in the book, 
may be corrected: the longsomeness of service abridged : 
Churchings and music moderated to better edification : 

. 


Ox the Hampton Court Conference. 219 


that the Lord’s day be not profaned : the rest upon holidays 
not so strictly urged: that there may be an uniformity of 
doctrine prescribed: no popish opinion to be any more 
taught or defended: no ministers charged to teach their 
people to bow at the name of Jesus: that the Canonical 
Scriptures only be read in the Church.” 

Subsequently the Puritans asked for a Conference 
of representatives to discuss the disputed questions. 

Such a course was vigorously opposed by the 
Universities as well as by the rest of the Episcopal 
Clergy, but the King, confident in his powers of con- 
trolling the debate, and thinking it prudent to yield 
to the wishes of so large a body, granted their request. 

The Conference was summoned to Hampton The consti- 
Court, where the King resided, for its first session the Comte 
on January 14th, 1604 A.D. sey 

The Divines selected to represent the discontents 
were Dr. Rainolds or Reynolds, and Dr. Sparkes, 
with Mr. Knewstub and Mr. Chaderton. 

The advocates of the Church invited to take part 
were Archbishop Whitgift, eight Bishops, of whom 
Bancroft of London, Matthew of Durham, and 
Bilson of Winchester were chief, six or seven Deans, 
embracing Andrewes, Overall, and Barlow, two 
doctors of Divinity, and one Archdeacon. 

On the first day the King did not invite the qhe first 
attendance of the Puritan representatives, but held 42s 


The second 
meeting. 


220 Appendix ITT. 


a consultation with the Bishops and Deans on these 
subjects, Confirmation, Absolution, and Private 
Baptism, upon which he required information. 

Two days afterwards, January 16th, the aggrieved 
party were admitted to a discussion with a portion 
of their opponents. The King opened the proceed- 
ings by expressing his readiness to hear any objec- 
tions which they had to bring forward. These were 
reduced by Dr. Reynolds to four, the last of which was 
aimed at the unfitness of the Book of Common Prayer 
to promote true piety. Judging from the following 
admonition of the King, the Bishops were disposed to 
take advantage of their position and not conduct the 
debate on fair terms. It was the conduct of Bishop 
Bancroft which called for his Majesty’s interposition. 

“My Lord Bishop, something in your passion I 
may excuse, something I must mislike, I may 
excuse you thus far, that I think you have just cause 
to be moved in respect that they traduce the well- 
settled government, and also proceed in so indirect 
a course, contrary to their own pretence, and the 
intent of this meeting. I mislike your sudden 
interruption of Dr. Reynolds, whom you should 
have suffered to have taken his liberty; for there 
is no order, nor can be any effectual issue of 
disputation, if each party be not suffered, without 


= 
i oN 


On the Hampton Court Conference. 221 


stopping, to speak at large. Wherefore, either let 
the Doctor proceed, or frame your answer to his 
motions already made, though some of them are 
very needless.” 

One of the objections which received much 
attention, as indeed it has done in other times 
besides, was the use of the Sign of the Cross in 
Baptism. : 

The King consulted with his Divines, and was 
satisfied of its antiquity from the learned testimony 
of Dean Andrewes, who appealed to the authority of 
the Primitive Fathers. But such evidence was of 
no value in the eyes of the objectors: even allowing 
that it had been in use, it had been abused, and 
that of itself was sufficient argument against the 
continuance. Dr. Reynolds called upon the King to 
follow the example of Hezekiah, who had crushed the 
brazen serpent to powder, because it had been 
perverted to idolatrous purposes. The King’s reply 
is highly characteristic :-— 

“Though I be sufficiently persuaded of the cross 
in baptism, and the commendable use thereof in the 
Church so long, yet, if there were nothing else to 
move me, this very argument were an inducement 
to me for the retaining of it, as it is now by order 
established ; for inasmuch as it was abused, so you 


The Sign of 
the Cross 
objected to. 


222 Appendix ILL, 


say, to superstition, in time of Popery, it doth 
plainly imply, that it was well-used before Popery. 
I will tell you, I have lived among this sort of men, 
(speaking to the lords and bishops,) ever since I was 
ten years old, but I may say of myself as Christ.did 
of Himself, Though I lived amongst them, yet 
since I had ability to judge, I was never of them; 
neither did anything make me more to condemn 
and detest their courses, than that they did so 
peremptorily disallow of all things, which at all had 
been used in Popery. For my part, I know not 
how to answer the objections of the papists when 
they charge us with novelties, but truly to tell them, 
that their abuses are new, but the things which they 
abuse we retain in their primitive use, and forsake 
only the novel corruption. By this argument, we 
might renounce the Trinity, and all that is holy, 
because it was abused in Popery: (and speaking to 
Dr. Reynolds merrily) they used to wear hose and 
shoes in Popery, therefore you shall now go bare- 
foot.” 

“Secondly,” quoth his Majesty, “what resemblance 
is there between the brazen serpent, a material visible 
thing, and the sign of the cross made in the air ?” 

Thirdly, he was informed by the Bishops, and 
found their account true, that “the Papists themselves 


On the Hampton Court Conference. 223 


never attributed any spiritual grace to the sign of 
the Cross in Baptism. 

“To say, that in nothing they may be followed 
which are of the Church of Rome, were violent and 
extreme.” 

“Some things they do in that they are men, in © 
‘hat they are wise men, and Christian men; some 
things in that they are misled and blinded with 
error.” 

The next scruple was the wearing of the 
surplice: this, it was pretended, was a habit worn 
by the priests of Isis. 

“This objection,” the King said, “ was somewhat 
new, because it was usually called a ‘rag of Popery.’ 

But granting the supposition, we do not live now 
amongst heathens, and therefore there is no danger 
of reviving Paganism.” 

On the third day of the Conference, January The third 
18th, the Bishops laid before the King the result of bese 
their deliberations upon the points on which he had 
consulted them when they first met. Thereupon 
his Majesty decided what alterations should be made 
in the Prayer-book, the exact wording being left to 
a small committee of the Bishops and Privy Council. 

The following may be regarded as concessions te 
the Puritans, though they were quite insignificant 


224 Appendix III. 


compared with the changes which were asked 
for. 
eee The Apocryphal Lessons were modified, and the 
pupertant title “ Confirmation” was explained by the additional 
ints con- 
tedad tothe words, “or laying on of hands upon children 
objectors. 4 © 
baptized and able to render an account of their 
faith.” 


Otherwise The grievances against vestments, the ring in 


book i “Matrimony, and the Cross in Baptism were left 
trength- 
aa unredressed. An explanation of the Sacraments 


from the pen of Overall, which must have been far 
from acceptable, if they rightly understood it, was 
added to the Catechism. Further, the title of the 
Absolution was enlarged by the addition of the 
words, “or Remission of sins.” With all these 
decisions the Puritans who were present at the 
Conference expressed their concurrence, though their 
conduct in doing so was a disappointment to the 
body whom they represented. 
“ied of An additional Prayer for the Queen, the Prince, 
added. | and other King’s and Queen’s children, with corre- 
sponding insertions in the Litany, was introduced, 
together with numerous Thanksgivings for diverse 
Benefits,—For Fair Weather, For Plenty, For Peace 
and Victory, and For Deliverance from the Plague. 
By far the most important however of the results 


On the Hampton Court Conference. 225 


of the Conference was the appointment of a 
Committee of Divines to make a new translation of The new 
the Holy Scriptures. The suggestion was made by ae ae 
Dr. Reynolds, but some years elapsed before the plan a 
was matured. On July 22nd, 1604 a.D., the King 

writes to Bishop Bancroft that fifty-four translators, 

_ to meet in various companies at Oxford and Cam- 

bridge and Westminster, had been nominated, and 

would shortly be prepared to proceed with their 

work. There was still further delay before the 
companies met, and the Translation was not given 

to the world till 1611 a.p. How far it became at 

once connected with the Services and worship of 

the Church is a disputed question. There is a 
statement on the title-page that it is “appointed to 

be read in Churches,” but there is an entire ab- 

sence of testimony to its having ever received any 

public sanction from Convocation or Parliament or 

the Privy Council or the King, 


King 
James’s 
desire for a 
Liturgy. 


APPENDIX IV. 


Che Scotch Serbhice-book, 
1637 A.D. 


HE history of the Revisions of the Prayer-book 
during the Reformation period can hardly be 
considered complete without some account of that 
which was made for the Church in Scotland? Its 
interest lies in the two facts, that it was the nearest 
approach to the First Prayer-book of Edward v1. 
yet made, and that, though failing in its immediate 
object, it had important results in its influence upon 
the Caroline Settlement in this country. 

In 1610 aD. King James turned his attention 
to the restoration of order and government in the 
Scotch Church, by the appointment of several 
Bishops and the recovery of Episcopal jurisdiction 
from the encroachments of the laity. His next step 
was to prepare the way for the introduction of an 
uniform Liturgy, but this was surrounded by so many 

1 An interesting and detailed account of this Service-book, written 
by Canon Bright, will he found in Appendix 1. of The Annotated 


Book of Common Prayer, edited by J. H. Blunt. 
226 


The Scotch Service-book. 227 


difficulties that he was able to do little more than 
set an example by establishing the English Service- 
book in his private chapel at Holyrood. 

When Charles 1. succeeded to the throne he 
determined to carry out his father’s object, and 
intrusted the negotiations to Laud. Maxwell, one 
of the leading Scotch clergy, came over to England, 
and in opposition to Laud, who was anxious for the 
introduction of the English Liturgy, with a view 
to uniformity of worship throughout the King’s 
dominions, pleaded for one compiled by his own 
countrymen. The arguments he used were that it 
would meet with a better reception, as the people 
were ill-disposed towards the English Church, and also 
that such a course would afford them the opportunity 
of obtaining a more perfect Liturgy, which, if lost 
then, might never recur. The request was acceded King 
to by the King, who in 1633 A.D. intrusted the ne 
compilation to a Committee of Scotch Bishops, of ihe prolcer: 
whom the chief were Spottiswood, Archbishop. of 
Glasgow, Maxwell, Bishop of Ross, and Wedderburn, 
Bishop of Dunblane. It was arranged that the 
work, as it progressed, should be submitted for the 
approval of Archbishop Laud and Bishops Juxon 
and Wren. Juxon took little or no interest in the 
matter, but the other two threw themselves heartily 


The King 
being ill- 
advised 
courts 
failure. 


228 Appendix IV. 


into the revision, and examined the suggestions of the 
Commissioners with the greatest care and attention. 
The King too was most desirous of promoting the 
efficiency of the work, and not only took part in 
criticising the draft sheets submitted for his sanction, 
but made many provisions in Scotland, which he 
hoped would insure for the Service-book a ready 
acceptance. But unfortunately all his efforts were 
defeated. The course he adopted, under the mis- 
guidance of his advisers, seems, as we look at it, to 
have been so shaped that no other result was 
possible. It may well be doubted whether under 
any circumstances a nation which was rooted in its 
attachment to such principles of Public Worship as 
John Knox had bequeathed to them, could have 
risen at once to the level of the First Prayer-book ; 
but it is quite certain that they could not do it under 
such arbitrary compulsion as the King exercised. 
The first false step was the publication of the 
Canons? before the Liturgy, for one of them enforced, 
under pains and penalties, the use of Forms of Worship 
which were not even framed at the time. The next 
error was made when the Service-book after 
receiving the Royal sanction, was thrust upon the 
nation with the most inconsiderate haste, without 

1 May 26, A.D. 1635. : 


The Scotch Service-book. 229 


any opportunity given either to the Clergy or the 
laity to examine or express any opinion upon it. 
The King’s Proclamation simply appointed it to be 
read throughout the Churches on the Sunday follow- 
ing its first publication.? 

The Scotch Presbyters, apart from their innate 
dislike to the use of any precomposed Form of 
Prayer, regarded the action of the King as an inroad 
upon the rights of the Church and roused themselves 
to resistance. The introduction of the Liturgy into 
the Cathedral was attended by a riot, which the 
presence of the Chancellor was powerless to suppress. 
The riot became a revolution. The scare of Popery 
was raised throughout the country, and soon the 
whole nation was in arms against the King, 

We need not follow the history of the civil war 
which ensued. Suffice it to say that the Liturgy 
and Canons were swept away, Episcopacy was 
abolished, and the “Solemn League and Covenant” 
was signed by every member of the Church under 
pain of excommunication. 

Laud himself thus sums up the history :? “ What 
‘way soever was taken, or in whomsoever there was 


1 The Proclamation is dated Dec. 20, 1636 a.D., but it was not 
published till the spring of 1637 a.p. 
2Laud’s Works, iii. 278. 


230 Appendix IV. 


a failure, this was certain in the event: the Bishops 
were deceived in their expectation of a peaceable 
admission of that Service-book: the King lost the 
honour and safety of that settlement: and that 
kingdom such a form of God’s Service, as I fear they 
will never come near again.” 
Theinterest DUt the Scotch Liturgy, as we said above, is full 
attaching of interest on other grounds than its speedy and 
vice-book. eventful rejection, Wren, who watched over its 
progress with unfailing interest, and made so many 
valuable suggestions to the Scotch Committee, must 
have been bitterly disappointed when its adoption 
in Scotland became utterly hopeless. The labour, 
however, which he had bestowed upon the revision 
was by no means wasted, for when, twenty-five years 
later, he was called to preside over the deliberations 
ee of the Caroline Revisionists, he fell back upon the 
aaa results of his previous efforts, and had the satisfaction 
of embodying in the Final Settlement not a few of 
the rejected alterations. 
The following! may be taken as specimens in the 


Communion Office :— 


1 For a more complete account of the characteristic features 
of this Service-book generally the reader may refer to JAMES 
ParkEr’s Introduction to the Revisions, pp. 1xv-lxvi. ; COLLIER’S 
Ficcles. Hist. viii. 108-111, and The Annotated Book af Common 
Prayer, Appendix 1 


The Scotch Service-book. 231 

“Then shall the Presbyter, turning to the people, 
rehearse distinctly the Ten Commandments.” The 
principle of turning to the people when delivering 
to them a message from God, as distinct from turning 
from them when directing petitions to God in their 
behalf, is recognised in the Rubric at this place 
for the first time. It was introduced again in 
1662 A.D. 

The Nicene Creed was to be said or sung as at 
present. The Alms were to be reverently brought 
in a bason and humbly presented, and set upon the 
Holy Table :—a direction enforced almost word for 
word in the Rubric of the Caroline Prayer-book. 

In the Prayer for the Church Militant the follow- 
ing commemoration of the dead occurred, and we 
have no difficulty in tracing its spirit,and to a 
considerable extent its language also, in that which 
we now use :— 

“And we also bless thy holy Name for all those 
thy servants, who, having finished their course in 
faith, do now rest from their labours. And we yield 
unto thee most high praise and hearty thanks, for the 
wonderful grace znd virtue declared in all thy saints, 
who have been the choice vessels of thy grace, and 
the lights of the world in their several generations: 
most humbly beseeching thee, that we may have 


232 Appendix IV. 


grace to follow the example of their stedfastness in 
thy faith, and obedience to thy holy command- 
ments: that at the day of the general resurrection 
we, and all they which are of the mystical body of 
thy Son, may be set on his right hand, and hear that 
his most joyful voice, Come, ye blessed of my Father, 


inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 


foundation of the world.” 

The title “the Prayer of Consecration ” is peculiar 
to these two Revisions. The marginal directions 
for “the manual acts” during the Consecration, 

. which had been entirely omitted since 1552 AD., 
were reintroduced in an enlarged form in 1637 AD., 
and almost totidem verbis, with a further Rubric pro- 
viding for the fraction, in 1662 A.D. 

The reverence paid to the unconsumed Elements, 
by placing them upon the Holy Table and “ covering 
them with a fair linen cloth,” was continued by the 
adoption of a Rubric to the same effect. 


ItsCatholic In some particulars the Scotch Liturgy was in 


teaching. 


advance of the present English Form, Wren and 
Cosin not being able at the Final Revision to restore 
all that they wished.’ It brought out more dis- 
sinctly the sacrificial aspect of the Holy Eucharist 


1 Cf. p. 190. 


The Scotch Service-book. 233 


as well as the doctrine of the Real Presence. In 
Ulustration we quote the following instances :— 

One of the early Rubrics provides that the Holy 
Table should be vested in a manner “ meet for the 
Holy Mysteries then to be celebrated,” and should 
“stand at the uppermost part of the Chancel 
or Church,” the force of which language is obvi- 
ous. 

Another directs that the Presbyter “shall offer 
up... the bread and wine prepared for the 
Sacrament.” 

In the Prayer for the Church Militant when there ©n the 


sacrificial 
was a Communion a clause was inserted which ran aspect of 


the Holy 
thus :—“ And we commend especially unto thy Eucharist. 
merciful goodness the congregation which is here 
assembled in thy Name to celebrate the commemora- 
tion! of the most precious death and sacrifice of thy 
Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.” And the title 
“Memorial or Prayer of Oblation” was prefixed 
to the words, “Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly 
Father, . . . we thy humble servants do celebrate 
and make here before thy divine Majesty, with 
these thy holy gifts, the memorial which thy Son 
hath willed us to make,” etc. 
Furthermore, its position was the same as in the 


: For the significance of this expression cf. pp. 16, 17 


On the 
doctrine of 
the Real 
Presence. 


234 Appendix IV. 


First Prayer-book after the Consecration but pre- 
ceding the act of communion. 

In support of what we said about its fuller recog- 
nition of the doctrine of the Real Presence, the — 
following will suffice :—The act of Consecration was 
immediately preceded by the Invocation: “ Hear us, 
O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech Thee, 
and of thy goodness vouchsafe so to bless and sanctify, 
with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and 
creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto 
us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved 
Son.” 

Again, the Benediction or Form of Administra 
tion consisted of the first clause only of that now in 
use: “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which 
was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto 
everlasting life :” which was followed by the Rubric, 
“Here the party receiving shall say, Amen.” 

The second clause, “Take, eat,” etc., which was 
substituted for the above in 1552 A.D. to escape from 


, the obvious conclusion that the Body of Christ was 


given in the Sacrament, was altogether omitted. 
Lastly, when all had communicated, it was provided 
that “he who celebrates shall go to the Lord’s Table 
and cover with a fair linen cloth, or corporal, that 
which remaineth of the consecrated elements.” 


The Scotch Service-book. 235 


Nothing could be more significant than this direc- 
tion, especially when it is remembered that the “ fair 
linen cloth” had acquired the name of Corporal 
because it was supposed to represent that in which 
Joseph had wrapped the body of our Lord. 

It would be interesting to dwell upon other 
features of this Liturgy, but we trust enough has 
been said to justify our inserting an account of it in 
a treatise which deals with the progressive history 
of the English Seryice-books, 


The West- 
minster 
Assembly 
of Divines. 


APPENDIX V. 


Dn the Dicectorp. 


S the Parliament grew in power and influence, 
they determined to submit all questions 
touching the Religious Worship of the country to 
an Assembly of Divines selected and appointed by 
their body. In view of obtaining for it a general 
acceptance they resolved to give it an air of wide 
comprehensiveness. 

Its members may be ranged in four parties :— 
Firstly, The Episcopalians,' whose number, however, 
was naturally as limited as possible. Secondly, The 
advocates of the doctrines and discipline of Presby- 
terianism,? who formed the bulk of the Assembly. 
Thirdly, Some foreign Nonconformists,? who had 
settled chiefly in Holland. Fourthly, A Committee 
of Laymen,* taken out of the two Houses of 
Parliament. With the Assembly so constituted 


1 Usher, Archbishop of Armagh ; Brownrigg, Bishop of Exeter ; 
Westfield of Bristol; Dr. Featley, etc. 
2 Drs. Hoyle, Smith, Twisse, Burgess, Stanton, etc. 
3 Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Goodwin, etc. 
4 The Earl of Pembroke, Messrs. Selden, Rouse, ete. 
236 


. 


On the Directory. 237 


certain Scotch Commissioners! were subsequently 
associated. 

The whole number of members nominated was 
one hundred and twenty, but when their names 
were called over at their first meeting in the chapel 
of Henry vit. at Westminster, July 1, 1643 aD., 
only sixty-nine presented themselves, and of these 
not a few appear to have withdrawn. 

The Episcopalians, on learning the constitution The Church 
and the objects of the Assembly, saw at once that ia 
their position as members was quite inconsistent 
with their loyalty to the King and their adherence 
to the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Church. 

Their withdrawal has been regarded as a mistake, 
but their numbers were far too small to have 
influenced the decisions of the Council; and we 
cannot regret that their conduct has acquitted the 
Church of any, even the least, participation therein. 

And now let us look at the part which the 
Assembly took touching Public Worship. The 
Parliament resolved to abolish the Book of Common 
Prayer, and called upon the Westminster Assembly 
to frame a model for Divine Service. The result of The publi- 
their labours was a book entitled “A Directory for oe 
the Public Worship of Gop, throughout the Three 

1 The Earl of Lothian, Lords Lauderdale, Warriston, etc. 


238 - Appendix V. 


Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland,” 
ordered by the Lords and Commons assembled in 
Parliament to be printed and published March 13, 
1644 AD. and again enforced under pain of 
forfeiture and penalties, January 6, 1645 A.D. 

As it superseded the Prayer-book and continued 
in use for a long period, and as it is not easy to be 
obtained, we have thought fit in this place to subjoin 
a general statement of its principles, as well as 
sufficient extracts from its directions to enable the 
reader to estimate it aright. 

The disre- - The first characteristic of this “model of Public 

ay ae Worship,” is the insignificant part assigned to that 

She mf which the Church has always regarded as the chief 
element, viz., Praise. At the very close, as though 
it were an after-thought merely, it is declared to be 
“the duty of Christians to praise Gop publicly by 
singing of Psalms together in the Congregation, and 
also privately in the Family,” but only once in the 
order of Service (apart from a parenthetical note) is 
any direction given, and then in the most indifferent 
way, “ Let a Psalm be sung, if with conveniency it 
may be done.” 

When this slight notice of praise is contrasted 
with the minute and lengthy directions for prayer 
and preaching. it becomes only too patent how 


- 


Ox the Directory. 239 


selfishness had completely subordinated the higher 
motives which ought to prompt the worshipper to 
ascribe honour to Gop simply and solely because it 
is due unto His Name. 

The exercise of “the gift of prayer,’ which was The “ gift 
one of the most urgent demands all through the alee 
Presbyterian grievances, was provided for on the ne 
most liberal scale. The Document, which throughout 
is a manual of directions rather than a Service-book, 
contains detailed prescriptions and numerous sugges- 
tions as to the character of the minister’s petitions, 
and it is not a little significant that those, which 
are to guide “ the Prayer before the Sermon,” occupy 
considerably more space? than all that bears upon 
the Celebration of the Holy Communion. 

The directions for the reading of Holy Scripture The reading 
are much less profuse. Of course none but the Scripture. 
Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments 
were admitted, and the long-standing prejudice 
against the Apocrypha was satisfied. The aversion 
to set Forms was carried to such an extent that the 
compilers seemed unwilling even to have a chapter 
of the Bible read unless it was accompanied by an 
exposition. For the Preaching of the Word, the 
power of God unto salvation, they laid down a 


1Cf. p. 40. 2 No less than six pages are taken up with these. 


a a 


240 Appendix V. 


series of rules, admirable enough in themselves, but 
out of place when forced into such prominence as to 
raise the value of the office far above any ordinance, 
saving that to which they allowed nothing to be 
subordinated, viz., exfempore prayer. 

The Rite of In the administration of Baptism, while laying 

Baptism, 
the utmost stress upon the Rite as a “seal of the 
Covenant of grace,’ they provided against the 
Catholic doctrine of Regeneration, by asserting of 
those who come to receive the Sacrament, “that 
they are Christians, and federally holy before 
Baptism, and therefore are they baptized.” 

pe Sacre In the Celebration of Holy Communion, their 

the Lord’s directions in one instance are more Catholic than 

Bupper we should have expected. 

The words which accompanied the distribution 
of the Elements were so framed as to exhibit no 
trace of a desire to exclude the Catholic doctrine of 
the Real Presence. 

This will be more striking if the formula be 
compared with that adopted by the Puritans in the 
Second Prayer-book of Edward v1.1 

In the Directory, the order runs thus: “Then 
the Minister, who is himself to communicate, is to 
break the Bread, and give it to the Communicants : 


1 Cf. p. 104. 


On the Directory. 241 


Take ye, eat ye: This is the Body of Christ, which 
is broken for you; Do this in remembrance of 
Him.” 

The obligation to kneel for reception was abro- 
gated by the rule that “the Table should be so 
conveniently placed, that the Communicants may 
orderly sit about it or at it.” 

Again, they read the words of the Institution 
simply as “a lesson of edification” instead of 
embodying the account in a prayer so as to make 
the Service “a memorial before God,” the same 
manual acts being used and the same words spoken 
as by Our LorD on the night of His betrayal. 


One cf the most grievous blots on the Directory best 
is the page which touches the Burial of the Dead. Dead. 


It shows how prejudice and fanaticism will drive 
men to violate the instincts of nature. If there be 
one time more than another when the heart of man 
needs the consolation of prayer, it is when he is 
burying his dead out of his sight. And yet the West- 
minster Assembly peremptorily forbade anything 
but “meditations and conferences suitable to the 
occasion.” If a Minister happened to be present, 
the privilege was conceded of putting the people 
“in remembrance of their duty.” 
1 Cf. SADLER’s One Offering, 101-105. 
Q 


The Sabba- 
tarianism 
of the 
Divines. 


242 Appendix V. 


It only remains to point out in what a marked 
manner their Sabbatarianism and dislike to the 
observance of Holy Days manifested itself. The 
whole of Sunday was to be celebrated as holy to the 
Lorp, and an entire abstinence was enjoined not 
only “from all sports and pastimes but also from all 
worldly words and thoughts.” 

It was further ordered that the intervals between 
the Public Services should “be spent in Reading, 
Meditation, Repetition of Sermons, especially by 
calling their families to an account of what they 
have heard, and Catechising of them, holy confer- 
ences, Prayer for a blessing upon the public Ordi- 
nances, singing of Psalms, visiting the sick, relieving 
the poor, and such like duties of piety, charity and 
mercy, accounting the Sabbath a delight.” 

The Commemoration of Saints, and other Festi- 
vals they swept away by the declaration that 
“Festival Days, vulgarly called Holy Days, having 
no warrant in the Word of God, are not to be con- 
tinued.” 


THE CONTENTS OF THE DIRECTORY. 


The Ordinance. 

The Preface. 

Of the Assembling of the Congregation. 
Of Public Reading of the Holy Scripture. 
Of Public Prayer before Sermon. 


=a 


Ox the Dzrrectory. 243 


Of the Preaching of the Word. 

Of Prayer after the Sermon. 

Of the Sacrament of Baptism. 

Of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. 

Of the Sanctification of the Lord’s Day. 

Of the Solemnisation of Marriage. 

Of the Visitation of the Sick. 

Of Burial of the Dead. 

Of Public Solemn Fasting. 

Of the Observation of days of Public Thanksgiving. 

Of singing of Psalms. 

An Appendix touching Days and Places of Public 
Worship. 


Or Pustic PRAYER BEFORE THE SERMON. 

“To acknowledge our great sinfulness ; First, by reason 
of original sin, which (beside the guilt that makes us liable 
to everlasting Damnation) is the seed of all other sins, hath 
depraved and poisoned all the faculties and powers of Soul 
and Body, doth defile our best actions, and (were it not 
restrained, or our hearts renewed by Grace) would break 
forth into innumerable transgressions, and greatest rebel- 
lions against the Lord, that ever were committed by the 
vilest of the sons of Men.” 

“To bewail our blindness of mind, hardness of heart, 
unbelief, impenitence, security, lukewarmness, barrenness, 
our not endeavouring after mortification and newness of 
life; nor after the exercise of godliness in the power 
thereof ;”... 

“To acknowledge and confess, that, as we are convinced 
of our guilt ; so out of a deep sense thereof, we judge our- 
selves unworthy of the smallest benefits, most worthy of 
God’s fiercest wrath, and of the Curses of the Law and 
heaviest Judgements inflicted upon the most rebellious 
Sinners ; and that he might most justly take his Kingdom 


244 Appendix V. 


and Gospel from us, plague us with all sorts of spiritual 
and temporal judgements in this life, and after cast us into 
utter Darkness, in the Lake that burneth with fire and 
brimstone, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth for 
evermore.” 


“ Notwithstanding all which, To draw near to the Throne 
of Grace, encouraging our selves with hope of a gracious 
Answer of our Prayers,” 


“ And humbly, and earnestly to supplicate for mercy in 
the free and full remission of our sins, and that only for the 
bitter sufferings and precious merits of that our only 
Saviour Jesus Christ.” 


“To pray for the propagation of the Gospel and Kingdom 
of Christ to all Nations, for the conversion of the Jews, the 
fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the 
hastening of the second coming of our Lord ;” . 


“To pray for all in Authority, especially for the King’s 
Majesty, that God would make him rich in blessings both 
in his person and government; establish his Throne in 
Religion and Righteousness, save him from evil counsel, 
and make him a blessed and glorious Instrument.” 


“For the comforting of the afflicted Queen of Bohemia, 
sister to our Sovereign, and for the restitution and establish- 
ment of the illustrious Prince Charles,” .. . 


“ For a blessing upon the High Court of Parliament,” . . . 

“For all Pastors and Teachers, that God would fill them 
with his Spirit,” 

“For the Tinie es, and all Schools and Religious 
seminaries of Church and Commonwealth,” ... 


“For the particular City or Congresatia me 


Ox the Directory. 245 


“To pray earnestly for Gon’s grace and effectual assist- 
ance to the Sanctification of his holy Sabbath, the Lord’s 
ay,” =." 


“More particularly that God would in a special manner 
furnish his Servant (now called to dispense the bread of life 
unto his household) with wisdom, fidelity, zeal, and utter- 
ance, that he may divide the Word of God aright,” ... 


Or PRAYER AFTER THE SERMON. 


“To give thanks for the great Love of God in sending 
his Son Jesus Christ unto us; For the communication of 
his Holy Spirit ; For the light and liberty of the glorious 
Gospel, and the rich and heavenly Blessings revealed 
therein ; as namely, Election, Vocation, Adoption, Justifica- 
tion, Sanctification, and hope of Glory ; For the admirable 
goodness of God in freeing the Land from Antichristian 
Darkness and Tyranny, and for all other National Deliver- 
ances ; For the Reformation of Religion ; For the Covenant ; 
and for many Temporal blessings.” 


“To turn the chief and most useful heads of the Sermon 
into some few Petitions ; and to pray that it may abide in 
the heart and bring forth fruit.” 


Or THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM. 


“That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: that it 
is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, of our ingrafting into 
Christ, and of our union with him, of Remission of Sins, 
Regeneration, Adoption, and Life eternal:” . . . 


“That children by Baptism are solemnly received into 
the bosom of the visible Church, distinguished from the 
world and them that are without, and united with Believers ; 
and that all who are baptized in the Name of Christ, do 
renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the 


246 Appendix V. 


Devil, the World, and the Flesh : That they are Christians, 
and federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they 
baptized. That the inward Grace and virtue of Baptism is 
not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is admin- 
istered, and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to 
the whole course of our life; and that outward Baptism is 
not so necessary, that through the want thereof the Infant 
is in danger of Damnation, or the Parents guilty, if they do 
not contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ when and 
where it may be had.” 


Or THE CELEBRATION OF THE COMMUNION, OR SACRAMENT 
oF THE LorpD’s SUPPER. 


“Let the Prayer, Thanksgiving, or Blessing of the Bread 
and Wine be to this effect ; 

“With humble and hearty acknowledgement of the 
greatness of our misery, from which neither man nor angel 
was able to deliver us, and of our great unworthiness of the 
least of all God’s mercies, to give thanks to God for all his 
benefits, and especially for that great benefit of our Redemp- 
tion, the love of God the Father, the sufferings and merits 
of the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, by which we are 
delivered ; and for all means of Grace, the Word and 
Sacraments, and for this Sacrament in particular, by which 
Christ and all his benefits are applied and sealed up unto 
us, which, notwithstanding the denial of them unto others, 
are in great mercy continued unto us after so much and 
long abuse of them all.” 


“To profess that there is no other Name under Heaven 
by which we can be saved but the Name of Jesus Christ, 
by whom alone we receive liberty and life, have access to the 
throne of Grace, are admitted to eat and drink at his own 
Table, and are sealed up by his Spirit to an assurance of 
happiness and everlasting life,” 


On the Directory. 247 


“ Earnestly to pray to God, the Father of all mercies, and 
God of all consolation, to vouchsafe his gracious presence, 
and the effectual working of his Spirit in us, and so to 
sanctify these Elements both of Bread and Wine, and to 
bless his own Ordinance, that we may receive by Faith the 
Body and Blood of Jesus Christ crucified for us, and so to 
feed upon him that he may be one with us, and we with 
him, that he may live in us and we in him and to him, who 
hath loved us and given himself for us.” 


“ After all have communicated the Minister is also to give 
solemn thanks to God for his rich mercy and invaluable 
goodness vouchsafed to them in that Sacrament, and to 
intreat for pardon for the defects of the whole service, and 
for the gracious assistance of his good Spirit, whereby they 
may be enabled to walk in the strength of that Grace, as 
becometh those who have received so great pledges of 
salvation.” 


ConcerniING BuriaL oF THE DEAD. 


“When any person departeth this life, let the dead body 
upon the day of Burial be decently attended from the house 
to the place appointed for public Burial, and there immedi- 
ately interred without any Ceremony. And because the 
customs of kneeling down, and praying by, or towards the 
dead corpse, and other such usages, in the place where it 
lies, before it be carried to Burial are superstitious, and for 
that praying, reading, and singing, both in going to, and at 
the Grave, have been grossly abused, are in no way beneficial 
to the dead, and have proved many ways hurtful to the 
living, therefore let all such things be laid aside.” 


“Howbeit, we judge it very convenient that the Christian 
friends which accompany the dead body to the place 
appointed for public Burial, do apply themselves to medita- 
tions, and conferences suitable to the occasion: And that the 


248 Appendix V. 


minister, as upon other occasions, so at this time, if he be 
present, may put them in remembrance of their duty.” 


“That this shall not extend to deny any civil respects or 
differences at the Burial suitable to the rank and condition 
of the party deceased whilst he was living.” 


APPENDIX: VE 


On the Changes introduced at the 
last Rebision. 


N the account of the Revision of the Prayer-book 

at Ely House after the Restoration of Charles IL., 

we entered upon a few changes which seemed to have 

an especial bearing upon the doctrines then under dis- 

pute. Many others, more or less important, resulted 

from the labours of the Committee, and as the 

history of this period would be manifestly very 

incomplete without some notice of them, we have 

subjoined an outline thereof, deeming this amply 
sufficient for the ordinary student. 

By far the greatest number of changes was made 
by the alteration of existing rubrics and the addition 
of new ones. Several which tended to promote 
greater reverence in the Administration of the Holy 
Eucharist have already been mentioned. We notice 
further the directions or side-notes in the Consecra- 
tion Prayer providing for the manual acts which had 
been ignored in the Second Prayer-book of Edward 


vi. and not restored by Elizabeth. An addition 
249 


250 Appendix VI, 


was made to the note in the First Prayer-book of 
Edward vi. of the words, “and here to break the 
bread,” insuring what Bishop Cosin characterised 
as a “needful circumstance of the Sacrament.” 

The belief in the Regeneration of Infants in Holy 
Baptism was strengthened by the transference of 
a rubric from the Confirmation to the Baptismal 
Office. In its original place it was intended to 
satisfy people that Confirmation was not necessary 
to salvation, for that if children died in their 
infancy after baptism their salvation was assured. 
In 1662 it was added at the close of the Baptismal 
Service as worthy of greater prominence than it 
received in an Office which was used so rarely as 
that for Confirmation. The Rubric runs thus :— 
“Tt is certain by Gop’s Word that children which 
are baptized dying before they commit actual sin, 
are undoubtedly saved.” It involved a doctrine so 
repugnant to the Presbyterians, that Baxter declared, 
“That of the forty sinful terms for a communion 
with the Church party, if thirty-nine were taken 
away and only that rubric concerning the salvation 
of infants dying shortly after their baptism were 
continued, yet they could not conform.” 

In the Introductory part of the Prayer-book the 
following additions were made :— 


Changes at the last Revision. 251 


The Preface, most probably written by Bishop 
Sanderson. 

The Table of the Vigils, Fasts, Days of Abstin- 
ence, together with certain solemn days for which 
particular services are appointed. 

“The five prayers” were transferred from the 
close of the Litany to the services for Matins and 
Evensong; and the latter received the addition of 
the Sentences, Exhortation, etc., which before had 
been prefixed to Matins only. In the Litany the 
petition for deliverance from Rebellion and Schism 
was added with much significance. Among the 
occasional prayers and thanksgivings were intro- 
duced :— 


A second prayer for fair weather. 

Two prayers for Embertide. 

The prayer for Parliament. 

The prayer for all conditions of men. 

The General Thanksgiving. 

The Thanksgiving for public peace at hors, 


New collects were composed for— 


The third Sunday in Advent. 
The sixth Sunday after the Epiphany. 
Easter Even. 


The Collect for St. Stephen’s Day was rewritten. 
A distinct Gospel and Epistle were introduced for 
the 6th Sunday after the Epiphany. 


252 Appendix VI. 


The title of the Feast, “The Purification of St. 
Mary,” was enlarged to its present form, “The 
Presentation of Christ in the Temple, commonly 
called The Purification,” etc., and a special Epistle 
provided instead of that for the preceding Sunday. 

A new Office was composed, for “The Baptism of 
such as be of riper years.” 

The Catechism was separated from the Confirma- 
tion Service, and at the same time an addition was 
made to the latter of very doubtful expediency. The 
Revisionists introduced all that portion which pro- 
vides for a public and solemn ratification of the 
Baptismal Vows by the candidate as a necessary 
prerequisite for the reception of the Rite. It is 
true that in the First Prayer-book of Edward VL, 
it was implied that children would previously be 
examined in the Church Catechism, which was 
united with the Confirmation Office in view of this, 
and also that the question, “ Dost thou not think 
that thou art bound to believe and do as they (the 
Godfathers and Godmothers) have promised for 
thee?” together with the answer, “ Yes, verily,” etc., 
was in some sense a “ratifying and confession of 
the same.” But the first Revisionists never con- 
templated such a result as has unhappily followed 
upon the action of the last, viz., the complete oyver- 


Changes at the last Revision. 253 


shadowing of the Scriptural and Catholic doctrine of 
the Gift of the Holy Ghost, by what is only subsidiary, 
certainly not essential to the Rite. It is a matter 
of profound regret that any human institution, no 
matter how good and useful in itself, should have 
been allowed to throw into the background a 
‘Divine Ordinance. 

For fifteen centuries and more the Church held 
that the Divine Gift was imparted wholly irrespective 
of any such qualification as the renewal of Baptismal 
Vows, in witness whereof we have only to appeal to 
the custom of confirming infants immediately after 
they had been baptized, which prevailed without 
question down to the eighth or ninth century.? 

The requirement for newly-married people to 
communicate on the day of their marriage was 
modified to a recommendation to do so then or at 
the first opportunity. 

In the Visitation of the Sick two rubrical changes 
were made by the insertion of the words in italics -— 

“Here shall the sick person be moved to make a 
special confession,” and “ After which confession the 
Priest shall absolve him, if he humbly and heartily 
desire it.” 


1Cf. JER. TAYLOR, Xplots TeNecwrix7. BrncHaM, Lib. xii. c. 1. 
GENNADIUS, de Eccles. Dogmatibus, c. 52. GREGORY, Lib. iii. Ep. 9. 
Ordo Romanus, De Bapt. 


INDEX. 


Assey of Ely, Division of the revenues 
of, 18. 

Abbey, Westminster, Debate in, 128. 

Absolution, The title of the, enlarged, 
224, 

Abstinence, The days of, appointed, 251. 
Act of Uniformity, 1549 a.p., 48, 

— 1559 a.p., 138. 

— 1662 a.p., 199. 

Act against irreverence in the Sacra- 

ment, 209. 

Adelphus, Bishop of Lincoln, p. xxii. 

Administration, The Formula of, 46, 
104, 134, 241. 

— of Baptism, in the Directory, 240. 
Advertisements of Elizabeth, 117, 148. 
Agape or Love Feast, 92. 

Agnus Dei, 102. 

Altar, The term, retained, 45. 
—erased, 101. 

Alternative Canticles, 82-4. 

Andrewes, 219, 221. 
Ann Askew, Martyrdom of, 10. 

Apocryphal Lessons, objected to, 174, n. 
— modified, 224. 

Ariminum, Council of, xxii. 

Arles, Council of, xxii. 

Arrangement of Psalms in daily Service, 

87. 

Articles, The Six, 10, 11, 75. 
Assembly, The Westminster, 236-41, 
Assessors at the First Revision, 27. 
Attleborough, Rising at, 53. 
Athanasian Creed, The, 85. 


Bancrort, The king’s letter to, 225. 
Bangor Use, 2. 


Bangor Use, Meaning of, xxvL 

Baptismal office, The, 86. 

— Sign of the Cross in, 221-2. 

Baptism, private, discussed at Hamp- 
ton Court, 220. 

Barlow, Dean, 219. 

Bates, at the Savoy, 178. 

Bayne, Bishop of Lichfield, 125. 

Baxter, Richard, 170. 

—— Reformed Liturgy of, 178. 

Bedford, Elizabeth’s Councillor, 122, 

Benedictine Rule of Life, xxvi, 44. 

Bill, a Revisionist, 122. 

Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, 219, 

Bishopric of Ely, 18S. 

— vacant, 144, 

Black Bartholomew, 198. 

Black Rubric introduced, The, 105. 

— omitted, The, 134. 

— altered and reintroduced, The, 195, 

Bloody Statute, Enactment of the, 52. 

Breda Declaration, The, 156, 

Breviary, The, «xviii. 

Britain Christianised, xxi. 

British Bishops, Early, xxii. 

Bucer, Martin, 57. 

— character of, 70. 

Burial of the Dead, Changes in the 
Service for, 89. 

—— according to the Directory, 247, 


CALAMY, as a Preacher, 171. 
Calendar, Changes in the, 80. 
— or Pie, The, 36. 

Calvin, 57. 

— rejected as a Revisionist, 17, 
Cannon Row, Meetings at, 122. 


256 


Canon Law, The, 30. 

Canonical Hours, The, xxvii, 1. 

Catechism, The Church, by whom com- 
posed, 18. 

Cathedrals, Public Worship in the, 
xxxi, xxxii. 

Catherine, Divorce of Queen, 17. 

Clergy, Emigration of, to the Continent, 


114. 

Code of Justinian, The, 29. 

Colet, Dean, xxxii, 6. 

Collects, for 3d Sunday in Advent, St. 
Stephen’s Day, and 6th Sunday after 
the Epiphany, 251. 

— Translation of, 32. 

—— ihe beauty of the language, 32-3. 

Committee of Revision, 1542-8 a.D., 12. 

—— 1559 a.p., 122. 

— 1661 a.D., 162. 

Commune Sanctorum, xxviii. 

Concordat, Scheme for a General, 58. 

Confession, Private, discouraged, 95. 

—Public, Form of, introduced, 82. 

Confirmation, 250. 

Convocation, 14. 

Cornwall, Insurrection in, 50. 

Cosin, 164-5. 

—— his Liturgical Works, 191. 

Council of Arles, The, xxii. 

— of Cloveshoo, The, xxv. 

— of Laodicea, The, 43. 

— of Lyons, 137 n. 

— of Nicxa, The, x, 13 1, 

— Edict of the Privy, 24. 

— of Sardica, The, xxii. 

Cox, Character of, 13, 22. 

— his pluralities, 22. 

Cranmer, Character of Archbishop, 14. 

—— his variability, 15. 


Day, Bishop of Chichester, Revisionist, 
12-20. 

Dead, Prayers for the, 90. 

Decalogue, Introduction of, into the 
Communion Office, 98. 

Devonshire, Insurzection in, 50. 


Index. 


Diary, Evelyn’s, 154-8, 
pee! for Public Worship, The, 
37. 

—— the contents of, 242-8, 

—— Characteristic features of, 238-42. 

Dissolution of Monasteries, 3. 

Divines, The Committee of, for trans- 
lating the Bible, 225. 

Divinum officium, xxviil. 

Divorce of Queen Catherine, 17. 

Durham, Insurrection at, 141. 


EccLESIASTICAL Po.iry, The, 152. 

Edict of Privy Council, 24. 

Edward vi., Death of King, 111. 

Ely, Bishopric of, 18, 

— vacant, 144. 

Epistolarium, 1, n. 

Erasmus revives the study of Greek, 5. 

—— the Greek Testament of, 5. 

Essex, 117. 

Evangelistarium, 1, 2. 

Evelyn’s Diary, 154-8. 

Exeter, The siege of, 52. 

Exhortation before the Holy Commu- 
nion, Alteration of the, 94. 

—— Addition of the, to Matins and 
Evensong, 251. 


FrecknamM, Abbot of Westminster, 
speech of, 130. 

Feria, de, 119. 

First Prayer-book, Preface to, 27. 

Friars, The preaching, xxx. 


Gattican Liturgy introduced into 
Britain, xxiii. 

— Structure of, 207, 8. 

Goodrich, Revisionist, 10, 

— Character of, 17. 

Gospel and Epistle for 6th Sunday after 
the Epiphany, 251. 

Graduale, 1. 

Gray, Revisionist, 122. 

Gregory the Great, Letter of, to St. 
Augustine, xxiv. 

Gregory vii., The Reforms of, xxviii. 


I[ndex. 


Gueste or Guest, 123, 125. 
Gunning, Character of, 168-9. 


Hampton Court Conference, The, 217. 

Harpsfield, Archbp. of Canterbury, 125. 

Hatton, Sir Christopher, 23. 

—— Garden, 23. 

Haynes, 13. 

— Opinions of, 25. 

Henchman, 188. 

Hereford Use, 2. 

Herman, The death of, xxix. 

Holbeach, 12. 

Hooker, Richard, 151. 

Hooper, John, and the Vestiarian dis- 
pute, 75. 

Horn of Durham, 125. 

Hours, Canonical, xxvii. 

— Condensation of the seven, 3S. 


Inrants, Regeneration of, 250. 
Tnjunctions of Elizabeth, 136. 
Interim, The, 63. 


JAcoMB, 178. 

James I., King, at Hampton Court, 220. 
Justinian, The Code of, 29. 

Justin Martyr, Writings of, 36. 

Juxon, Archbishop, 162. 
KALENDARIUM, xxviii. 

Kett, The Execution of, 54 

Knewstub, 219. 

Knox, John, 61. 


Larry, The Priesthood of the, 6-7, n. 

Langdale, Archdeacon of Lewes, 125. 

Laodicea, Council of, 43. 

Lasco, John a, 57. 

— Life of, 65. 

Latimer, 6, n. 

Latin, The use of, in Divine Service, 
27-9. 

Laud, Archbishop, 164. 

Law, Canon, 30. 


Learning, The New, 5. 


R 


257 


Lectionarius, 1. 

Leicester, ‘‘ The wicked Earl,” 117. 
Lessons, The Apocryphal, modified, 224. 
Lightfoot, 172. 

Lincoln Use, 2. 

Litany, The English, 30. 

— Liberty to omit the, withdrawn, 85. 
Liturgy of Ephesus, 206. 

—— The Gallican, 206. 

—— Outline of the Gallican, 207. 
Lorp’s Supper, Title of the, 92-3. 
Lower House of Convocation, 22. 
Lyons, Council of, 137. 


Manvat, The, xxix, 1-2, 37. 

Martyr, Justin, Writings of, 36. 

Martyr, Peter, 57. 

Mary Magdalene, Saint, Service omitted, 
81. 

Maskell’s Primer, 6-7, n. 

— on the Daily Service, 6-7. 

Mass, The title of, 92. 

Matrimonial Office, 88. 

Matthew, Bishop of Durham, 217, 219. 

May, Revisionist, 13, 122. 

— Character of, 24, 

Melanchthon, 57. 

Millenary Petition, The, 218. 

Missal, The, 1-2, n., 37. 

Mission of St. Augustine, xxiii. 

Monasteries, Dissolution of, 3. 

— Religion confined to the, xxix. 

Monasticism, Spread of, in England, 
xxvi. 

Morley, Bishop of Worcester, 165. 

— Revisionist, 188. 

Music in Divine Service, 136. 


New Lrarnine, The, 5. 

Nicza, The Council of, 13, n. 

Nicholson, Bishop of Gloucester, Re- 
visionist, 188. 

Norfolk, Rising in, 53. 

Northampton, Queen Elizabeth’s Coun- 
cillor, 122. 


258 


L[ndex. 


Nowell, Dean, reputed author of the | Proprium de Tempore, xxviii. 


Catechism, 18. 
—— Sermon of, before the Queen,119. 


Oak OF REFORMATION, The, 54. 

Oblation, The prayer of, 45-102. 

Office for the Baptism of adults, The 
new, 252. 

Order of the Communion, 209. 

— Contents of, 210. 

Origen, xxi. 

Ornaments Rubric, Introduction of the, 
134. 

Osmund, Bishop of Sarum, xxviii. 

Overall, 164. 

—— at the Hampton Court Conference, 
219. 

—— Author of the Explanation of the 
Sacraments in the Catechism, 224. 


PARKER, Revisionist, 122. 

—— in danger of his life, 54. 

Pearson, at the Savoy Conference, 178. 

Petition, The Millenary, 218. 

Pie, The, 36. 

Pilkington, Revisionist, 122. 

Polity, The Ecclesiastical, of Hooker, 
152. 

Pontifical, The, 2. 

Position of the Reader in Church, 81. 

Prayer of Oblation, The, 45. 

—— displaced, 102. 

Prayer-book, Title of the, 79. 

Prayer for The Church Militant, 96. 

—— Additions to, in the Caroline Settle- 
ment, 194. 

Preface to the Prayer-book, 27. 

—— in 1662 a.p., 109. 

Presbyterian Ministers, The conduct of 
200. 

—— Hjectment of, 199. 

Presence, The real, in the First Book, 15. 

—— obscured in the Second, 102-7. 

Primers, The, 1. 

Primer, The King’s, 2. 

Privy Council, The, 24. 


— Sanctorum, xxviii. 
Protestant, origin of the term, 62. 
— Cities, The fourteen, 62 n. 
Protestants, Foreign, 57. 

Psalms, Arrangement of, 37. 


Psalterium, xxviii. 
Puritans, The exceptions of, 174. 


QUEEN CATHERINE, Divorce of, 17. 

—— Elizabeth, Doctrinal views of, 118. 

— Rapacity of, 143. 

Quignonez, Cardinal, Revised Liturgy 
of, 35. 


READER, The position of the, in Church, 
81. 

Redmayn, Revisionist, 18, 73. 

—— Opinions of, 26. 

Refugees, Foreign, in England, 65. 

“Rest, Saints’ Everlasting,” Baxter's, 
171. 

Results of the Hampton Court Con- 
ference, 225. 

Revision, Causes leading to, 3-8. 

—— First Committee of, by whom ap- 
pointed, 8. 

Revisionists, Names of, 12-18. 

Reynolds, Dr., 219-221. 

Ridley, Bishop of Rochester, a Revi- 
sionist, 12. 

Rising in Norfolk, 52, 

Rituale, 1. 

Robertson, a Revisionist, 13. 

Rubric, Introduction of the Ornaments, 
133. 

—— Omission of the Black, 134. 

Rubrical change in 1662 A.p., 192. 

—— general, 249. 

Rule, The Benedictine, 44. 


Sacririctar Aspect of the Holy Euchar- 
ist, 17, 18. 

‘Saints’ Everlasting Rest,” by Baxter 
Pre. 

Saints Stories of, 34. 


Lndex. 


259 


Sancroft, Secretary to the Commission, 
1661 a.D., 188. 

Sanderson, Author of the Preface, 167. 

—— a Reyvisionist, 1661 a.p., 188. 

Sardica, Council of, xxii. 

Sarum Use, 3. 

Savoy Conference, The, 162. 

Scory, late Bishop of Chichester, 125. 

Scotch Service-book— 

—History of, 226-30. 

——Influence of, on the Final Revision, 
230. 

—lIts recognition of Catholic Doc- 
trine, 231. 

Sealed Books, The, 197-8. 

Sentences prefixed to Matins, 52. 

—— Evensong, 251. 


Services, Table of, in the Breviary, 42-3. | 


Shaxton, Vacillation of, 10. 

Sick, Visitation and Communion of the, 
88. 

—— Rubrical Changes in the Service, 

252. 

Sign of the Cross objected to, 221-2. 

Skip, a Revisionist, 12. 

Smalcald, The League of, 63. 

Smith, Sir Thomas, 121. 

Smithfield, The fires of, 10. 

Solemn League and Covenant, 182. 

Sparkes, Dr., 219. 

Sparrow, at the Savoy Conference, 178. 

Special Prayers introduced, 251. 

—— Thanksgivings, 224. 

Spires, Diet of, 62. 

Spiritual Lords regain their seats in 
Parliament, 185. 

Statute, The Bloody, 52. 

Surplice, objected to, 175. 

Swiss Protestants, 61. 


TaBLeE of the Vigils, The, 251. 

Taylor, Doctrinal opinions of, 25. 

Te Deum, 31. 

—— Mistranslations in, 32. 

Tertullian, xxi. 

Thanksgiving, The General, 171. 

Thanksgivings, Special, 224. 

Thirlby, Bishop of Westminster, Re- 
visionist, 12. 

—— Roman tendencies of, 19. 

— Character of, 20. 

Transubstantiation, The Doctrine of, 10. 

Translation of Holy Scriptures, The, 
225. 


Unirormity, Acts of, 48, 138, 199. 
Uses, The, 2. 


Viarts, The table of the, 251. 
Vestiarian Controversy, The, 70. 


WARNER, 188. 

Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, committed 
to the Tower, 129. 

Westminster, Bishop of, 20. 

White, Bishop of Winchester, committed 
to the Tower, 129. 

Whitehead, 122. 

Windsor Castle, the place of meeting for 
the First Revisionists, 12. 

Words of Administration, The, 47. 

Worship, Bill for Uniformity of Public, 
184. 

Wren, Bishop, 188-9. 


YorK Use, 2. 


ZUINGLIANISM, 67. 


Diinburgh Gnibersity ress: 
THOMAS AND ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY 


Date Due 


DEC 22'62 


~ Wii 


pose > Sides in 
of the book of common prayer. 


DATE ISSUED TO 
Div.§S. 264.03 L94158 


